3 ms·
Good thing our current "AI" is a fancy guessing algorithm, and not an alien with 300 IQ. This renders the argument moot.
by baggachipz 1y ago
Good thing our current "AI" is a fancy guessing algorithm, and not an alien with 300 IQ. This renders the argument moot.
- cwillu 1y agoNobody is seriously claiming that current language models are AI in the context of ai-risk; you can tell because the argument is always “In the next few decades, it’s entirely possible that AI with an IQ of 300 will arrive”
- delusional 1y agoOh, but they very much are.
- baggachipz 1y ago[flagged]
- eatsyourtacos 1y ago>is a fancy guessing algorithm That's literally what our brains are so I'm not sure what argument you are actually trying to make..
- sim7c00 1y agoguessing tokens (or something similar) i think humans grasp at more than 1 type of straw. Edit: no ok i get u. ensemble learning is a thing ofc. maybe me n other poster reasoned too much from AI == model..but ofc you combine em these days. which is more humanlike guesser levels. (not nearly enough models now ofc)
- baggachipz 1y agoWe don't have IQs of 300. Would you seriously consider an LLM the same as a human brain?
- esafak 1y agohttps://www.trackingai.org/home https://www.trackingai.org/home Without doubt, LLMs know more than any human, and can act faster. They will soon be smarter than any human. Why does it have to be the same as a human brain? That is irrelevant.
- ACCount37 1y agoThey are implemented on an entirely different substrate. But they are very similar in function. The training process forces this outcome. By necessity, LLMs converge onto something of a similar shape to a human mind. LLMs use the same type of "abstract thinking" as humans do, and even their failures are amusingly humanlike.
- RamtinJ95 1y agoWhat? Who has made this claim, what is the evidence? I don’t think this is true at all.
- mikestew 1y agoI suspect you missed this part of the argument, then: In the next few decades, it’s entirely possible that AI with an IQ of 300 will arrive. Really, that might actually happen. If you want to argue against that point, feel free. But to ignore that is to be unnecessarily dismissive.
- qsort 1y agoYeah, and? There are two separate conversations, one about capabilities and one about what happens assuming a certain capability threshold is met. They are p(A) and p(B|A). I myself don't fully buy the idea that you can just naively extrapolate, but mixing the two isn't good thinking.
- dudeinjapan 1y agoBayes got us into this whole mess to begin with.
- NoahZuniga 1y agoI don't agree. Just because AI doesn't have 300 IQ now, doesn't mean its completely impossible that it won't get there in 30 years. Do you think there's at least a 1% chance that AI will get this smart in the next 30 years? If so, surely applying this allegory helps you think about the possible consequences.