5 ms·
OpenAI (and its peer companies) have deliberately muddied the waters of that language. AI is a marketing term that lets them use disparate systems' success to i
by MengerSponge 1y ago
OpenAI (and its peer companies) have deliberately muddied the waters of that language. AI is a marketing term that lets them use disparate systems' success to inflate confidence in their promised utility.
- ripped_britches 1y agoNope they started an AI company and then started messing around with robotics and then landing on LLMs as a runway.
- coldtea 1y agoNone of the above refutes or even addresses the parent's point.
- lucumo 1y agoMeh. People have been calling much dumber algorithms "AI" for decades. You guys are just pedants.
- card_zero 1y agoBy the way, don’t call it “AI.” That catchall phrase, which used to cover everything from expert systems and neural networks to robotics and vision systems, is now passe in some circles. The preferred terms now are “knowledge-based systems” and “intelligent systems”, claimed Computerworld magazine in 1991. https://archive.org/details/computerworld2530unse/page/59/mode/1up https://archive.org/details/computerworld2530unse/page/59/mo...
- ACCount37 1y agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AI_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AI_effect
- card_zero 1y agoUh-huh. If you call it artificial intelligence people quibble, as they should.
- ACCount37 1y agoI disagree entirely. I think that this "quibble" is just cope. People don't want machines to infringe on their precious "intelligence". So for any notable AI advance, they rush to come up with a reason why it's "not ackhtually intelligent". Even if those machines obviously do the kind of tasks that were entirely exclusive to humans just a few years ago. Or were in the realm of "machines would never be able to do this" a few years ago.
- card_zero 1y agoI for one am a counter-example. I'd be delighted by the discovery of actual artificial intelligence, which is obviously possible in principle.
- ACCount37 1y agoAnd what would that "actual artificial intelligence" be, pray tell me? What is this magical, impossible-to-capture thing that disqualifies LLMs?
- card_zero 1y agoWell, fuck knows. However, that doesn't automatically make this a "no true Scotsman" argument. Sometimes we just don't know an answer. Here's a question for you, actually: what's the criterion for being non-intelligent?
- ACCount37 1y ago"Fuck knows" is a wrong answer if I've ever seen one. If you don't have anything attached to your argument, then it's just "LLMs are not intelligent because I said so". I, for one, don't think that "intelligence" can be a binary distinction. Most AIs are incredibly narrow though - entirely constrained to specific tasks in narrow domains. LLMs are the first "general intelligence" systems - close to human in the breadth of their capabilities, and capable of tackling a wide range of tasks they weren't specifically designed to tackle. They're not superhuman across the board though - the capability profile is jagged, with sharply superhuman performance in some domains and deeply subhuman performance in others. And "AGI" is tied to "human level" - so LLMs get to sit in this weird niche of "subhuman AGI" instead.
- coldtea 1y agoAnd that was fine, since the algorithms being much dumber then, never made laymen think "this is intelligent in a human-like way". Plus few cared for AI or AI products per se for the most part. Now that AI is a household term, and that has human-like output and discussion capabilities, and used by laymen for anything, from diet advice to psychotherapy, the connotation is more damaging since people understand LLMs being AI as having human agency and understanding of the world.