4 ms·
The whole notion of "we need to know what intelligence is exactly to reproduce it" is completely and utterly wrong. It's also the kind of thinking that results
by ACCount37 7mo ago
The whole notion of "we need to know what intelligence is exactly to reproduce it" is completely and utterly wrong.
It's also the kind of thinking that results in "neurosymbolic garbage is good actually".
What neural nets do today is basically "everything humans do". There is no longer a list of "things computers can't do" - just a list of things computers do worse than the top 1% of humans. Ever shrinking.
- deleted 7mo ago[deleted]
- YeGoblynQueenne 7mo agoWell, for example a computer can't make me an omelette. There's tons of examples like that, pretty much everything humans "can do" with our bodies, that computers can't- not just because they don't have bodies, but because even when we give them bodies we can't program them to do the things we want them to. LLMs don't help at all here. They can easily fake knowing what to do but the -not few- attempts people have made to connect LLMs to a robot to get the LLM to drive the robot like a little AI brain have ... not really worked out? I guess? Not even self-driving cars use LLMs. Speaking of self-driving cars' AIs, while they have plenty of machine learning components, e.g. for vision, SLAM, and so on, they are largely hand-coded, rule-based systems. Just like the good old days of GOFAI. >> The whole notion of "we need to know what intelligence is exactly to reproduce it" is completely and utterly wrong. Can you explain why it's completely wrong?
- red75prime 7mo ago> LLMs don't help at all here You haven't heard about VLAs in robotics.