6 ms·

I don't know. People in the 90s were initially fooled by Eliza, but soon understood that Eliza was a trick. LLMs are a more complex and expensive trick. Maybe i

I don't know. People in the 90s were initially fooled by Eliza, but soon understood that Eliza was a trick. LLMs are a more complex and expensive trick. Maybe it's time to overthrow the Turing Test. Fooling humans isn't necessarily an indicator of intelligence, and it leads down a blind alley: Language is a false proxy for thought. Consider this. I could walk into a club in Vegas, throw down $10,000 cash for a VIP table, and start throwing around $100 bills. Would that make most people think I'm wealthy? Yes. Am I actually wealthy? No. But clearly the test is the wrong test. All show and no go.

NoMoreNicksLeft 1y ago
[flagged]
- andoando 1y ago
  This just isnt true. Go head and make up a problem and ask
- noduerme 1y ago
  >> I should be able to get one up and running for you by the middle of next year Funny. I agree with your plainspoken analysis of why these things are nowhere near AGI, and of what AGI would be. I even had a long conversation with Claude last week where it told me that no LLM would ever approach AGI (but then it wrote a 4-paragraph-long diatribe entitled "Why I Declare Myself Conscious" in the same conversation). These neural networks are closer to the speechwriting machine in The Penultimate Truth, or the songwriting machine in 1984. As for that latter one, I believe Orwell remarks on how it just recycles the same sentimental tunes and words in different order so that there's always a "new" song all the proles are humming.
qudat 1y ago
> LLMs are a more complex and expensive trick The more I think about this, the more I think the same is true for our own intelligence. Consciousness is a trick and AI development is lifting the veil of our vanity. I'm not claiming that LLMs are conscious or intelligent or whatever. I'm suggesting that next token prediction has scaled so well and cover so many use cases that the next couple breakthroughs will show us how simple intelligence is once you remove the complexity of biological systems from the equation. https://bower.sh/who-will-understand-consciousness https://bower.sh/who-will-understand-consciousness
- bobson381 1y ago
  I'm with you on this. We, the conscious I having experiences, I vent explanations with language after the fact. It's fun.
  - shwaj 1y ago
    I think you meant to respond to @noduerme, not @qudat. If so, I agree with both of you, otherwise I’m confused by what you’re saying.
- noduerme 1y ago
  I'm also attracted to the idea of reducing rule sets to simple algorithms and axioms, in every case you can. But I'm skeptical that consciousness can be reduced that way. I think if it can be, we'll see it in the distillation and quantizing of smaller and smaller scale models converging on similar adaptations, as opposed to the need for greater scale (at least in inference). I still believe language processing is the wrong task to train to that point. I'd like to see AIs that model thought process, logic, tool construction, real-world tasks without language. Maybe even those that model vocal chords and neurological processes instead of phonemes. Most animals don't use language, and as a result we can't ask if they're conscious, but they probably are. Navigating and manipulating the physical world from the cellular level up to swinging from trees is far more complex - language is a very late invention, and is not in and of itself intelligence - it may just be a lagging indicator. To the extent that we vainly consider ourselves intelligent for our linguistic abilities, sure. But this underrates the other types of spatial and procedural reasoning that humans possess, or even the type that spiders possess.
- ffsm8 1y ago
  Animals are conscious, (somewhat) intelligent and have no verbal language. It is an entirely different thing to language,which was created by humans to communicate between us. Language is the baseline to collaboration - not intelligence
  - vlovich123 1y ago
    > and have no verbal language How do you define verbal language? Many animals emit different sounds that others in their community know how to react to. Some even get quite complex in structure (eg dolphins and whales) but I wouldn’t also rule out some species of birds, and some primates to start with. And they can collaborate; elephants, dolphins, and wolves for example collaborate and would die without it. Also it’s completely myopic in terms of ignoring humans who have non verbal language (eg sign language) perfectly capable of cooperation. TLDR: just because you can’t understand an animal doesn’t mean it lacks the capability you failed to actually define properly.
famouswaffles 1y ago
>I could walk into a club in Vegas, throw down $10,000 cash for a VIP table, and start throwing around $100 bills. If you can withdraw $10,000 cash at all to dispose as you please (including for this 'trick' game) then my friend you are wealthy from the perspective of the vast majority of humans living on the planet. And if you balk at doing this, maybe because you cannot actually withdraw that much, or maybe because it is badly needed for something else, then you are not actually capable of performing the test now, are you ?
- ses1984 1y ago
  I’m sorry but I feel you missed the point. Couldn’t someone else just give him a bunch of cash to blow on the test, to spoil the result? Couldn’t he give away his last dollar but pretend he’s just going to another casino? Observing someone’s behavior in Vegas is a just looking at a proxy for wealth, not the actual wealth.
  - famouswaffles 1y ago
    >Couldn’t someone else just give him a bunch of cash to blow on the test, to spoil the result? If you still need a rich person to pass the test, then the test is working as intended. Person A is rich or person A is backed by a rich sponsor is not a material difference for the test. You are hinging too much on minute details of the analogy. In the real word, your riches can be sponsored by someone else, but for whatever intelligence task we envision, if the machine is taking it then the machine is taking it. >Couldn’t he give away his last dollar but pretend he’s just going to another casino? Again, if you have $10,000 you can just withdraw today and give away, last dollar or not, the vast majority of people on this planet would call you wealthy. You have to understand that this is just not something most humans can actually do, even on their deathbed.
    - noduerme 1y ago
      >> Again, if you have $10,000 you can just withdraw today and give away, last dollar or not, the vast majority of people on this planet would call you wealthy. You have to understand that this is just not something most humans can actually do, even on their deathbed. So, most people can't get $1 Trillion to build a machine that fools people into thinking it's intelligent. That's probably also not a trick that will ever be repeated.
raducu 1y ago
> Maybe it's time to overthrow the Turing Test. Fooling humans isn't necessarily an indicator of intelligence. I'm sorry, but I find this intelectual dishonesty and moving the goal posts. Speaks more about our inability to recognize the monumental revolution about to happen in the next decade or so.
- nightski 1y ago
  Whoever said the Turing test was the one and only goalpost? It was a test, simple as that. Not the sole objective of an entire field of study.
torginus 1y ago
I am not a good writer or artist, yet I can tell that AI generated pictures or prose feel 'off' compared to stuff that humans make. People who are professional writers and artists can point out in a lot of cases the issues with structure, execution and composition that these images have, or maybe if sometimes they can't they still have a nose for subtle issues, and can improve on the result.
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
dboreham 1y ago
Missing insight: humans are also a trick. Every human is deluded about the intelligence of other humans, and themselves.
jncfhnb 1y ago
The validity of the Turing test doesn’t change the fact that the bots are better than humans at many tasks that we would consider intellectual challenges

NoMoreNicksLeft 1y ago

[flagged]

andoando 1y ago
This just isnt true. Go head and make up a problem and ask
noduerme 1y ago
>> I should be able to get one up and running for you by the middle of next year Funny. I agree with your plainspoken analysis of why these things are nowhere near AGI, and of what AGI would be. I even had a long conversation with Claude last week where it told me that no LLM would ever approach AGI (but then it wrote a 4-paragraph-long diatribe entitled "Why I Declare Myself Conscious" in the same conversation). These neural networks are closer to the speechwriting machine in The Penultimate Truth, or the songwriting machine in 1984. As for that latter one, I believe Orwell remarks on how it just recycles the same sentimental tunes and words in different order so that there's always a "new" song all the proles are humming.

qudat 1y ago

> LLMs are a more complex and expensive trick The more I think about this, the more I think the same is true for our own intelligence. Consciousness is a trick and AI development is lifting the veil of our vanity. I'm not claiming that LLMs are conscious or intelligent or whatever. I'm suggesting that next token prediction has scaled so well and cover so many use cases that the next couple breakthroughs will show us how simple intelligence is once you remove the complexity of biological systems from the equation. https://bower.sh/who-will-understand-consciousness https://bower.sh/who-will-understand-consciousness

bobson381 1y ago
I'm with you on this. We, the conscious I having experiences, I vent explanations with language after the fact. It's fun.
- shwaj 1y ago
  I think you meant to respond to @noduerme, not @qudat. If so, I agree with both of you, otherwise I’m confused by what you’re saying.
noduerme 1y ago
I'm also attracted to the idea of reducing rule sets to simple algorithms and axioms, in every case you can. But I'm skeptical that consciousness can be reduced that way. I think if it can be, we'll see it in the distillation and quantizing of smaller and smaller scale models converging on similar adaptations, as opposed to the need for greater scale (at least in inference). I still believe language processing is the wrong task to train to that point. I'd like to see AIs that model thought process, logic, tool construction, real-world tasks without language. Maybe even those that model vocal chords and neurological processes instead of phonemes. Most animals don't use language, and as a result we can't ask if they're conscious, but they probably are. Navigating and manipulating the physical world from the cellular level up to swinging from trees is far more complex - language is a very late invention, and is not in and of itself intelligence - it may just be a lagging indicator. To the extent that we vainly consider ourselves intelligent for our linguistic abilities, sure. But this underrates the other types of spatial and procedural reasoning that humans possess, or even the type that spiders possess.
ffsm8 1y ago
Animals are conscious, (somewhat) intelligent and have no verbal language. It is an entirely different thing to language,which was created by humans to communicate between us. Language is the baseline to collaboration - not intelligence
- vlovich123 1y ago
  > and have no verbal language How do you define verbal language? Many animals emit different sounds that others in their community know how to react to. Some even get quite complex in structure (eg dolphins and whales) but I wouldn’t also rule out some species of birds, and some primates to start with. And they can collaborate; elephants, dolphins, and wolves for example collaborate and would die without it. Also it’s completely myopic in terms of ignoring humans who have non verbal language (eg sign language) perfectly capable of cooperation. TLDR: just because you can’t understand an animal doesn’t mean it lacks the capability you failed to actually define properly.

famouswaffles 1y ago

>I could walk into a club in Vegas, throw down $10,000 cash for a VIP table, and start throwing around $100 bills. If you can withdraw $10,000 cash at all to dispose as you please (including for this 'trick' game) then my friend you are wealthy from the perspective of the vast majority of humans living on the planet. And if you balk at doing this, maybe because you cannot actually withdraw that much, or maybe because it is badly needed for something else, then you are not actually capable of performing the test now, are you ?

ses1984 1y ago
I’m sorry but I feel you missed the point. Couldn’t someone else just give him a bunch of cash to blow on the test, to spoil the result? Couldn’t he give away his last dollar but pretend he’s just going to another casino? Observing someone’s behavior in Vegas is a just looking at a proxy for wealth, not the actual wealth.
- famouswaffles 1y ago
  >Couldn’t someone else just give him a bunch of cash to blow on the test, to spoil the result? If you still need a rich person to pass the test, then the test is working as intended. Person A is rich or person A is backed by a rich sponsor is not a material difference for the test. You are hinging too much on minute details of the analogy. In the real word, your riches can be sponsored by someone else, but for whatever intelligence task we envision, if the machine is taking it then the machine is taking it. >Couldn’t he give away his last dollar but pretend he’s just going to another casino? Again, if you have $10,000 you can just withdraw today and give away, last dollar or not, the vast majority of people on this planet would call you wealthy. You have to understand that this is just not something most humans can actually do, even on their deathbed.
  - noduerme 1y ago
    >> Again, if you have $10,000 you can just withdraw today and give away, last dollar or not, the vast majority of people on this planet would call you wealthy. You have to understand that this is just not something most humans can actually do, even on their deathbed. So, most people can't get $1 Trillion to build a machine that fools people into thinking it's intelligent. That's probably also not a trick that will ever be repeated.

raducu 1y ago

> Maybe it's time to overthrow the Turing Test. Fooling humans isn't necessarily an indicator of intelligence. I'm sorry, but I find this intelectual dishonesty and moving the goal posts. Speaks more about our inability to recognize the monumental revolution about to happen in the next decade or so.

nightski 1y ago
Whoever said the Turing test was the one and only goalpost? It was a test, simple as that. Not the sole objective of an entire field of study.

torginus 1y ago

I am not a good writer or artist, yet I can tell that AI generated pictures or prose feel 'off' compared to stuff that humans make. People who are professional writers and artists can point out in a lot of cases the issues with structure, execution and composition that these images have, or maybe if sometimes they can't they still have a nose for subtle issues, and can improve on the result.

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]

dboreham 1y ago

Missing insight: humans are also a trick. Every human is deluded about the intelligence of other humans, and themselves.

jncfhnb 1y ago

The validity of the Turing test doesn’t change the fact that the bots are better than humans at many tasks that we would consider intellectual challenges