4 ms·

AI is smarter than everyone already. Seriously, the breadth of knowledge the AI possesses has no human counterpart.

zhoujianfu 11mo ago
AI has more knowledge than everyone already, I wouldn't say smarter though. It's like wisdom vs intelligence in D+D (and/or life).. wisdom is knowing things, intelligence is how quick you can learn / create new things.
- consp 11mo ago
  Knowledge is what I see equivalent with a big library. It contains mostly correct information in the context of the book (which might be incorrect in general) and "ai" is very good at taking everything out of context, Smashing a probability distribution over it and picking an answer which humans will accept. E.g. it does not contain knowledge, at best the vague pretense of it.
- metalman 11mo ago
  AI has zero knowledge, as to know something is to have done it, or seen it first hand. AI has access to a great deal of data, much of it aquired through criminal action, but no way to evaluate that information other than cross checking for citations and similar occurances. Even for a human, infering things is difficult and uncertain, and so we regularly see AI fall of the cliff of cohearant word salading. We are heading strait at an idiocracy writ large that is trying to hide there raciorilgio insanity behind algorythims. Sometimes it's hard to tell, but it seems that a hairdresser has just been put in charge of the US passport office, which is highy sugestive of a new top level program to issue US citizenship on demand, but everbody else will be subject to the "impartiality" of privatly owned and operated AI policing.
krainboltgreene 11mo ago
Man, what are we supposed to do with people who think the above?
- gambiting 11mo ago
  I don't know, it's kinda terrifying how this line of thinking is spreading even on HN. AI as we have it now is just a turbocharged autocomplete, with a really good information access. It's not smart, or dumb, or anything "human" .
  - design2203 11mo ago
    It just shows that true natural intelligence is difficult to define by proxy.
  - antonvs 11mo ago
    Do you think your own language processing abilities are significantly different from autocomplete with information access? If so, why?
    - gambiting 11mo ago
      I hate these kinds of questions where you try to imply it's actually the same thing as what our brains are doing. Stop it. I think it would be an affront to your own intelligence to entertain this as a serious question, so I will not.
      - design2203 11mo ago
        [flagged]
        antonvs 11mo ago
        [flagged]
        design2203 11mo ago
        [flagged]
        11mo ago
opan 11mo ago
It's pretty similar to looking something up with a search engine, mashing together some top results + hallucinating a bit, isn't it? The psychological effects of the chat-like interface + the lower friction of posting in said chat again vs reading 6 tabs and redoing your search, seems to be the big killer feature. The main "new" info is often incorrect info. If you could get the full page text of every url on the first page of ddg results and dump it into vim/emacs where you can move/search around quickly, that would probably be similarly as good, and without the hallucinations. (I'm guessing someone is gonna compare this to the old Dropbox post, but whatever.) It has no human counterpart in the same sense that humans still go to the library (or a search engine) when they don't know something, and we don't have the contents of all the books (or articles/websites) stored in our head.
- throwuxiytayq 11mo ago
  > If you could get the full page text of every url on the first page of ddg results and dump it into vim/emacs where you can move/search around quickly, that would probably be similarly as good, and without the hallucinations. Curiously, literally nobody on earth uses this workflow. People must be in complete denial to pretend that LLM (re)search engines can’t be used to trivially save hours or days of work. The accuracy isn’t perfect, but entirely sufficient for very many use cases, and will arguably continue to improve in the near future.
  - fzeroracer 11mo ago
    The only way LLM search engines save time is if you take what it says at face value as truth. Otherwise you still have to fact check whatever it spews out which is the actual time consuming part of doing proper research. Frankly I've seen enough dangerous hallucinations from LLM search engines to immediately discard anything it says.
    - throwuxiytayq 11mo ago
      Of course you have to fact check - but verification is much faster and easier than searching from scratch.
solumunus 11mo ago
Having knowledge is not exactly the same as being smart though is it.
- cindyllm 11mo ago
  [dead]
- xandrius 11mo ago
  Although it helps immensely.
  - design2203 11mo ago
    Only if you understand it..
- charcircuit 11mo ago
  It's at least one component of it, and by being exceptional in that component it makes up for what it lacks in other components.
eCa 11mo ago
Just this weekend it (Gemini) has produced two detailed sets of instructions on how to connect different devices over bluetooth, including a video (that I didn’t watch), while the devices did not support doing the connections in that direction. No reasonable human reading the involved manuals would think those solutions feasible. Not impressed, again.
gloosx 11mo ago
It's like saying google search is smarter than everyone, amount of information indexed by it has no human counterpart, such a silly take...
godelski 11mo ago
> the breadth of knowledge knowledge != intelligence If knowledge == intelligence then Google and Wikipedia are "smarter" than you and the AGI problem has been solved for several decades.
- deleted 11mo ago
  [deleted]
saghm 11mo ago
Even if we were going to accept the premise that total knowledge is equivalent to intelligence (which is silly, as sibling comments have pointed out), shouldn't accuracy also come into play? AI also says a lot more obviously wrong things than the average person, so how do you weight that against the purported knowledge? You could answer yes or no randomly to any arbitrary question about whether something is true and approximate a 50% accuracy rate with an evenly distributed pool of questions, but that's obviously not proof that you know everything. I don't think the choice of where to draw the line on "how often can you be wrong and have it still matter" is as easy as you're implying, or that everyone will necessarily agree on where it lies (even if we all agree that 50% correctness is obviously way too low).

AI has more knowledge than everyone already, I wouldn't say smarter though. It's like wisdom vs intelligence in D+D (and/or life).. wisdom is knowing things, intelligence is how quick you can learn / create new things.

consp 11mo ago
Knowledge is what I see equivalent with a big library. It contains mostly correct information in the context of the book (which might be incorrect in general) and "ai" is very good at taking everything out of context, Smashing a probability distribution over it and picking an answer which humans will accept. E.g. it does not contain knowledge, at best the vague pretense of it.
metalman 11mo ago
AI has zero knowledge, as to know something is to have done it, or seen it first hand. AI has access to a great deal of data, much of it aquired through criminal action, but no way to evaluate that information other than cross checking for citations and similar occurances. Even for a human, infering things is difficult and uncertain, and so we regularly see AI fall of the cliff of cohearant word salading. We are heading strait at an idiocracy writ large that is trying to hide there raciorilgio insanity behind algorythims. Sometimes it's hard to tell, but it seems that a hairdresser has just been put in charge of the US passport office, which is highy sugestive of a new top level program to issue US citizenship on demand, but everbody else will be subject to the "impartiality" of privatly owned and operated AI policing.

krainboltgreene 11mo ago

Man, what are we supposed to do with people who think the above?

gambiting 11mo ago
I don't know, it's kinda terrifying how this line of thinking is spreading even on HN. AI as we have it now is just a turbocharged autocomplete, with a really good information access. It's not smart, or dumb, or anything "human" .
- design2203 11mo ago
  It just shows that true natural intelligence is difficult to define by proxy.
- antonvs 11mo ago
  Do you think your own language processing abilities are significantly different from autocomplete with information access? If so, why?
  - gambiting 11mo ago
    I hate these kinds of questions where you try to imply it's actually the same thing as what our brains are doing. Stop it. I think it would be an affront to your own intelligence to entertain this as a serious question, so I will not.
    - design2203 11mo ago
      [flagged]
      - antonvs 11mo ago
        [flagged]
        design2203 11mo ago
        [flagged]
        11mo ago

opan 11mo ago

It's pretty similar to looking something up with a search engine, mashing together some top results + hallucinating a bit, isn't it? The psychological effects of the chat-like interface + the lower friction of posting in said chat again vs reading 6 tabs and redoing your search, seems to be the big killer feature. The main "new" info is often incorrect info. If you could get the full page text of every url on the first page of ddg results and dump it into vim/emacs where you can move/search around quickly, that would probably be similarly as good, and without the hallucinations. (I'm guessing someone is gonna compare this to the old Dropbox post, but whatever.) It has no human counterpart in the same sense that humans still go to the library (or a search engine) when they don't know something, and we don't have the contents of all the books (or articles/websites) stored in our head.

throwuxiytayq 11mo ago
> If you could get the full page text of every url on the first page of ddg results and dump it into vim/emacs where you can move/search around quickly, that would probably be similarly as good, and without the hallucinations. Curiously, literally nobody on earth uses this workflow. People must be in complete denial to pretend that LLM (re)search engines can’t be used to trivially save hours or days of work. The accuracy isn’t perfect, but entirely sufficient for very many use cases, and will arguably continue to improve in the near future.
- fzeroracer 11mo ago
  The only way LLM search engines save time is if you take what it says at face value as truth. Otherwise you still have to fact check whatever it spews out which is the actual time consuming part of doing proper research. Frankly I've seen enough dangerous hallucinations from LLM search engines to immediately discard anything it says.
  - throwuxiytayq 11mo ago
    Of course you have to fact check - but verification is much faster and easier than searching from scratch.

solumunus 11mo ago

Having knowledge is not exactly the same as being smart though is it.

cindyllm 11mo ago
[dead]
xandrius 11mo ago
Although it helps immensely.
- design2203 11mo ago
  Only if you understand it..
charcircuit 11mo ago
It's at least one component of it, and by being exceptional in that component it makes up for what it lacks in other components.

eCa 11mo ago

Just this weekend it (Gemini) has produced two detailed sets of instructions on how to connect different devices over bluetooth, including a video (that I didn’t watch), while the devices did not support doing the connections in that direction. No reasonable human reading the involved manuals would think those solutions feasible. Not impressed, again.

gloosx 11mo ago

It's like saying google search is smarter than everyone, amount of information indexed by it has no human counterpart, such a silly take...

godelski 11mo ago

> the breadth of knowledge knowledge != intelligence If knowledge == intelligence then Google and Wikipedia are "smarter" than you and the AGI problem has been solved for several decades.

deleted 11mo ago
[deleted]

saghm 11mo ago

Even if we were going to accept the premise that total knowledge is equivalent to intelligence (which is silly, as sibling comments have pointed out), shouldn't accuracy also come into play? AI also says a lot more obviously wrong things than the average person, so how do you weight that against the purported knowledge? You could answer yes or no randomly to any arbitrary question about whether something is true and approximate a 50% accuracy rate with an evenly distributed pool of questions, but that's obviously not proof that you know everything. I don't think the choice of where to draw the line on "how often can you be wrong and have it still matter" is as easy as you're implying, or that everyone will necessarily agree on where it lies (even if we all agree that 50% correctness is obviously way too low).