3 ms·

I think you're missing the point. He's pointing out what the atmosphere was/is around LLMs in these discussions, and how that impacts stories like with Lemoine.

I think you're missing the point. He's pointing out what the atmosphere was/is around LLMs in these discussions, and how that impacts stories like with Lemoine. I mean, you're right that he's silly and Google didn't want to be part of it, but it was (and is?) taken seriously that: LLMs are nascent AGI, companies are pouring money to get there first, we might be a year or two away. Take these as true, it's at least possible that Google might have something chained up in their basement. In retrospect, Google dismissed him because he was acting in a strange and destructive way. At the time, it could be spun as just further evidence: they're silencing him because he's right. Could it have created such hysteria and silliness if the environment hadn't been so poisoned by the talk of imminent AGI/sentience?

brookst 2y ago
Sure, but does any of that support the claim that LLMs were marketed as superintelligence?
- hatefulmoron 2y ago
  Which comment claimed that LLMs were marketed as super-intelligence? I'm looking up the chain and I can't see it. I don't think they were, but I think it's pretty clear they were marketed as being the imminent path to super-intelligence, or something like it. OpenAI were saying GPT-(n-1) is as intelligent as a high school student, GPT-(n) is a university student, GPT-(n+1) will be.. something.
  - jibal 2y ago
    That's the whole discussion here: "It's mostly because of how they were initially marketed. In an effort to drive hype 'we' were promised the world. Remember the "leaks" from Google about an engineer trying to get the word out that they had created a sentient intelligence?"
jibal 2y ago
I did not miss any point and that's an ad hominem charge. He misrepresented the facts and based an argument on that misrepresentation and I pointed that out. "In retrospect, Google dismissed him because he was acting in a strange and destructive way." No, they dismissed him because he had released Google internal product information, "In retrospect" or otherwise.

brookst 2y ago

Sure, but does any of that support the claim that LLMs were marketed as superintelligence?

hatefulmoron 2y ago
Which comment claimed that LLMs were marketed as super-intelligence? I'm looking up the chain and I can't see it. I don't think they were, but I think it's pretty clear they were marketed as being the imminent path to super-intelligence, or something like it. OpenAI were saying GPT-(n-1) is as intelligent as a high school student, GPT-(n) is a university student, GPT-(n+1) will be.. something.
- jibal 2y ago
  That's the whole discussion here: "It's mostly because of how they were initially marketed. In an effort to drive hype 'we' were promised the world. Remember the "leaks" from Google about an engineer trying to get the word out that they had created a sentient intelligence?"

jibal 2y ago

I did not miss any point and that's an ad hominem charge. He misrepresented the facts and based an argument on that misrepresentation and I pointed that out. "In retrospect, Google dismissed him because he was acting in a strange and destructive way." No, they dismissed him because he had released Google internal product information, "In retrospect" or otherwise.