4 ms·
We Now Know How AI 'Thinks'–and It's Barely Thinking at All
- uxhacker 1y agohttps://archive.is/whcKL https://archive.is/whcKL
- chii 1y agoAn AI doesn't need to think in the same way humans think. It just needs to achieve results (that are better, or at least equal to humans). The same question has been asked of chess "ai" in the past - that chess ai isn't thinking, it's "just" searching through all possibilities etc. And yet, the result is that no humans can beat chess ais now-a-days.
- Scarblac 1y ago"The question of whether computers can think is about as interesting as the question whether submarines can swim" - Dijkstra.
- strogonoff 1y agoThat an LLM does not need to think to produce the output we want seems fairly uncontroversial. However, a statement like “LLMs may think, just not in the same way humans think, to produce the output we want” is problematic. “The same way humans think” is the only kind of “think” that matters, for all intents and purposes. If we cannot define what it specifically is—because it loops us immediately back to the definition of consciousness et al.—the most precise definition of it will have to be along the lines of “the sort of thing that goes on in human minds”.
- croes 1y agoThe question is if it’s worth all the money and resources if it’s not thinking at all so it’s not a way to AGI. Would you invest so much in a bunch of if-then-else lists?
- rkagerer 1y agoI'm growing weary of all the AI hype being shoved down my throat. Every time I dig into examples of what it can do, the result seems shittier than what a talented human would achieve instead. I'm forming an impression it's a kludge for the mediocre. I don't want to be a crotchety old grump about this - I'd love to hear thoughts on truly notable examples where quality far exceeds our existing best in class work.
- chii 1y ago> the result seems shittier than what a talented human would achieve instead. but what about compared to an average, or below average human would achieve?
- mptest 1y agoI think your only problem is too-high expectations. >examples where quality far exceeds our existing best in class work I'm no expert, but what percentage of the economy needs/is best in class work? I agree running up against the limits of these models after reading the marketing material can give the impression they're "a kludge for the mediocre" and they certainly are in part that, but they're also so much more.[0] [0] https://crawshaw.io/blog/programming-with-llms https://crawshaw.io/blog/programming-with-llms
- rsynnott 1y ago> I think your only problem is too-high expectations. Well, I mean, if it can only do crap work, then what use is it, really?
- stefs 1y agochess or go. but i agree with the others - AI currently shines not at being better than best-in-class humans, it's - sometimes - useful at doing intellectual chores.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- solumunus 1y ago
- felixhammerl 1y agoIn the news we seem to have reached Schrödinger's AI: Too dumb to do anything properly, but coming for everyone's jobs due to being too powerful.
- rsynnott 1y agoThere's a third way; coming for some peoples' jobs due to false advertising and almost unthinkable levels of hype. Like, there are actual companies who have stopped hiring junior developers or even laid off junior developers in favour of our robot overlords. This is, obviously, a terrible idea, and will hurt those companies, because the output of these things is pretty much crap, but meanwhile some people _have_ lost their jobs.
- croes 1y agoYou just need to convince the management
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]