4 ms·

> Current frontier models are absolutely sci-fi AI by any measure that existed up until the late 2010s. Sci-fi is Lt. Cmdr. Data, HAL, Skynet, Culture Minds...

> Current frontier models are absolutely sci-fi AI by any measure that existed up until the late 2010s. Sci-fi is Lt. Cmdr. Data, HAL, Skynet, Culture Minds... > Current frontier models are absolutely sci-fi AI by any measure that existed up until the late 2010s. If you showed a current frontier agentic AI, with bidirectional speech, tool use etc. to a person from 2010, they'd say it can't be real, there must be a person inside that mechanical turk. It wasn't a natural language chat interface that makes stupid mistakes a noticeable fraction of the time and can execute command line programs.

nobody9999 3mo ago
>Sci-fi is Lt. Cmdr. Data, HAL, Skynet, Culture Minds... The current state of things is closer (not close to by a long shot) to Fred Pohl's "AI" programs from his novel Gateway[0] than it is to the above examples. But even those are decades (at least) beyond what we have now. What we have now is the foreseeable (from at least 30 or 40 years ago) evolution of what was once called "expert systems."[1] [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gateway_(novel) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gateway_(novel) [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expert_system https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expert_system
- bonoboTP 3mo ago
  How was it foreseeable? Expert systems worked on quite different principles. Knowledge representation, expert interviews, ontologies etc.
  - nobody9999 3mo ago
    >How was it foreseeable? I guess you had to be there. I certainly saw it coming. >Expert systems worked on quite different principles. Actually, not so much. The inference engine has changed, but otherwise it's same shit, different day.
    - bonoboTP 3mo ago
      Expert systems didn't use neural nets or in fact any machine learning. They did interviews with experts and tried to do domain modeling, mapping the expertise to a formal symbolic logical description, ontologies, relations etc. Both the knowledge base and the inference engine changed. They both changed to a unified machine learning paradigm. It's like you throw away your axe's handle, then the head, and then you grab a chainsaw. It's "the same thing" to that same degree.

nobody9999 3mo ago

>Sci-fi is Lt. Cmdr. Data, HAL, Skynet, Culture Minds... The current state of things is closer (not close to by a long shot) to Fred Pohl's "AI" programs from his novel Gateway[0] than it is to the above examples. But even those are decades (at least) beyond what we have now. What we have now is the foreseeable (from at least 30 or 40 years ago) evolution of what was once called "expert systems."[1] [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gateway_(novel) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gateway_(novel) [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expert_system https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expert_system

bonoboTP 3mo ago
How was it foreseeable? Expert systems worked on quite different principles. Knowledge representation, expert interviews, ontologies etc.
- nobody9999 3mo ago
  >How was it foreseeable? I guess you had to be there. I certainly saw it coming. >Expert systems worked on quite different principles. Actually, not so much. The inference engine has changed, but otherwise it's same shit, different day.
  - bonoboTP 3mo ago
    Expert systems didn't use neural nets or in fact any machine learning. They did interviews with experts and tried to do domain modeling, mapping the expertise to a formal symbolic logical description, ontologies, relations etc. Both the knowledge base and the inference engine changed. They both changed to a unified machine learning paradigm. It's like you throw away your axe's handle, then the head, and then you grab a chainsaw. It's "the same thing" to that same degree.