3 ms·

I did not in any way "trivialise AI". LLMS are amazing and a massive accomplishment. I just wanted to contrast them to Asimov's conception of AI. > I'm not ent

by slibhb 2y ago

I did not in any way "trivialise AI". LLMS are amazing and a massive accomplishment. I just wanted to contrast them to Asimov's conception of AI. > I'm not entirely sure why invoking statistics feels like a rebuttal to me. Putting aside the fact that LLMs are not purely statistics, even if they were what proof is there that you cannot make a statistical intelligent machine. It would not at all surprise me to learn that someone has made a purely statistical Turing complete model. To then argue that it couldn't think you are saying computers can never think, and by that and the fact that we think you are invoking a soul, God, or Penrose. I don't follow this. I don't believe that LLMs are capable of thinking. I don't believe that computers, as they exist now, are capable of thinking (regardless of the program they run). I do believe that it is possible to build machines that can think -- we just don't know how. To me, the strange move you're making is assuming that we will "accidentally" create thinking machines while doing AI research. On the contrary, I think we'll build thinking, conscious machines after understanding our own consciousness, or at least the consciousness of other animals, and not before.

Lerc 2y ago
>I did not in any way "trivialise AI". LLMS are amazing and a massive accomplishment. I just wanted to contrast them to Asimov's conception of AI. Point taken. As lelandbatey said, your comment seems to be the one case where it's not meant to trivialise. >I don't believe that LLMs are capable of thinking. I don't believe that computers, as they exist now, are capable of thinking (regardless of the program they run). I do believe that it is possible to build machines that can think -- we just don't know how. The (regardless of the program they run) suggests you think that AI cannot be achieved by algorithmic means. That runs a little counter to the belief that it is possible to build thinking machines unless you think those future machines have some non algorithmic enhancement that takes them beyond machines, I do not assume we will "accidentally" create thinking machines, but I certainly think it's not impossible. On the other hand I suspect the best chance we have of understanding consciousness will be by attempting to build one.

by slibhb 2y ago

Lerc 2y ago

>I did not in any way "trivialise AI". LLMS are amazing and a massive accomplishment. I just wanted to contrast them to Asimov's conception of AI. Point taken. As lelandbatey said, your comment seems to be the one case where it's not meant to trivialise. >I don't believe that LLMs are capable of thinking. I don't believe that computers, as they exist now, are capable of thinking (regardless of the program they run). I do believe that it is possible to build machines that can think -- we just don't know how. The (regardless of the program they run) suggests you think that AI cannot be achieved by algorithmic means. That runs a little counter to the belief that it is possible to build thinking machines unless you think those future machines have some non algorithmic enhancement that takes them beyond machines, I do not assume we will "accidentally" create thinking machines, but I certainly think it's not impossible. On the other hand I suspect the best chance we have of understanding consciousness will be by attempting to build one.