2 ms·
That's not OP's contention though; it's that models are incapable of even surfacing sufficient information. This doesn't pass the smell test. To wit, here is C
by ericpauley 3mo ago
That's not OP's contention though; it's that models are incapable of even surfacing sufficient information. This doesn't pass the smell test.
To wit, here is ChatGPT's "superintelligent" answer: https://chatgpt.com/s/t_6a52b4a322bc81919308ec864a0cc056 https://chatgpt.com/s/t_6a52b4a322bc81919308ec864a0cc056
Seems like a perfectly cromulent description by which a beginner could probably change a tire, perhaps with a few follow-ups to understand what certain components are.
- jamilton 3mo agoI read his contention as “the people who wrote AI 2040 are nerds who are so ungrounded from physical reality they wouldn’t even know how to change a bike tire if given instructions”. Which I think is also wrong but has a genuine criticism in it.
- deleted 3mo ago[deleted]
- pas 3mo agosure, they have strong bay area aura, but an ad hominem is not very useful criticism of the actual arguments for AI safety (and longtermism, and against x-risks in general).