4 ms·
I'll never understand it when people quote a primary source and then summarize it in a way that completely ignores the original quote. Olah's quote (edit - ori
by hn_throwaway_99 5mo ago
I'll never understand it when people quote a primary source and then summarize it in a way that completely ignores the original quote.
Olah's quote (edit - originally misidentified this as Pope Leo's) makes a lot of sense to me. He is saying, accurately, that modern AI (i.e. primarily LLMs) is created as essentially a mashup of our own language, and they are still a bit of a black box (or at least a gray box) to even their creators.
I don't know how you get from that to "he's framing AI as some new and fascinating form of consciousness".
- geerlingguy 5mo agoMy comment was on the Anthropic co-founder's speech, not Pope Leo's encyclical.
- hn_throwaway_99 5mo agoThanks, I edited my comment to fix my misattribution. But regardless, I still don't think your assertion that "he's framing AI as some new and fascinating form of consciousness" follows from the quote, nor from Olah's speech as a whole.
- lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 5mo ago> I don't know how you get from that to "he's framing AI as some new and fascinating form of consciousness". Of course you're entitled to your perspective but it seems wrong to say OP ignored what they quoted. They just had an interpretation of it that's different from yours. For what it's worth, I also see that in Olah's words, largely because it's AI hype from someone who would be a fool not to be an AI hype man. I can't really imagine what else he could be implying. Especially using the word "mysterious", yes, it appears to be an attempt at raising AI above the application of statistics we know it to be; there's little mystery in how it works, and all that's at runtime.
- grantcas 5mo ago[dead]