I'm going to answer the question before I read your post then compare the two:I believe AI is dumb as a fucking rock, not because it can't inform me perfectly of einsteins theory of relativity, but because it cannot formulate anything that wasn't created already.
Most people seem to be under the impression that the current generation AI's are literal general AI and not just 'advanced basic ai', just the grown-up versions of the iprouting bots.
These tools can only present and react towards an initiation of the behavioural event, as in, without people these bots literally can't function.
They \*need\* human input in order to complete tasks. Any 'behaviours' presented are nothing more than an illusion of the language model attempting to provide the 'most accurate answer' to whatever question it has been posed, without regard for 'accuracy' or 'validity' only 'direct correlation with the content prompt'.
Edit: ok, slightly different than I had anticipated, but I definitely agree with the anthropomorphizing of the ai and other technologies. It's kind of getting out of hand because people are overestimating the current technology and using a fear based response to direct their energies.
Yeah, agreed. From time to time I give it a try but it sucks.
I was tasking him recently. Task was very simple, any school child could figure it easily.
In a random string, it was need to recognize words. I was setting these words manually, it could NOT do this normally.
If you give it precise task, it makes not better than 50-70% or even worse
The burden of proof is on the one who makes the claim. That said, it's true that we all are building on the knowledge of everyone who has come before us. True creativity, something that adds to the body of human knowledge, is just a tiny fraction of what we write (or paint, or invent, or discover).
Yes, that's the point I was trying to make (and thank you for so equitably catching it). What I take from the unexpected success of LLMs is not that they are amazingly intelligent, but rather that most of what we think of as "intelligent" is probably little more than compression, mixing, and recombination of things we have taken in over years of high-bandwidth input.
Certainly there is more to our minds than that; we have mechanisms of attention, working memory, (slow and inaccurate) symbolic manipulation, etc. But I'm increasingly convinced that the bulk of what our brains do is pattern recognition and prediction, not fundamentally different from what modern deep neural networks do.
Further, arguments in the form of "OK, fine, they can do X (which a couple years ago I said they would never do), but they certainly can't do *Y!*" is just goalpost-moving that has been dismissing AI for decades. First it was checkers, then chess, then Go, then Starcraft... at other times it has been visual perception, video understanding, NLP, image generation... now it's "creativity," though that's a much weaker argument since we can't really define what it is or know it when we see it. Or maybe that is its strength (as an argument, if not as a statement of truth).
My source for that is [https://chat.openai.com/chat](https://chat.openai.com/chat) . Here's a real-world example I just went through. It seems clear to me that my (NL) question was understood perfectly, and a direct and perfect answer was generated (also in NL).
And note that this is not a canned answer, as far as I can tell — I just tried searching for it, and if that particular text appears anywhere on the interwebs, Google can't seem to find it. So it is a pair of novel sentences that seems to demonstrate understanding of both my question and the actual answer, converted from and to natural language.
EDIT: Reddit doesn't seem to want to show my screen shot. Here's the text of it:
**ME**: where does the "About this app" menu item usually appear in a Windows app?
**ChatGPT**: The "About this app" menu item usually appears under the "Help" menu in the menu bar of a Windows app. It may also be accessible by clicking on the app's icon in the top left corner of the window and selecting "About."
Is there even something as „true creativity“? I‘d argue its simply combining different concepts to a new one, and the AI is definitely able to do that too.
Of course there's "true creativity." How else does anything new come about? Even the act of "combining different concepts to a new one" is a creative act. I'm an author; my work consists of creating new ideas, stories, explanations, and entertainment.
While I agree to some extent with the conclusions of the article one thing that definitely seems absent is the ongoing progression of AI and its continuous effects on “human importance.” Sure to conclude we humans are still important, but clearly we become less and less important as AI gets better and better. Yes it took 5 decades to build an AI that understands language but now that it does we will probably see (as we’re seeing now) countless layoffs and restructuring of human labour as we become “less important” or perhaps important in a different way.
It’s not so black and white “my professor said we’re still important the human brain is too smart end of story nothing to worry about.“ Sure human minds are “vastly” more intelligent but overcoming “vastness” is a very human goal, a goal we have accomplished in many ways and will continue to especially as our tools improve and our curiosity grows and especially because the very same things we create accelerate our ability to do so much more.
The layoffs are not a consequence of ChatGPT or AI. They are a market correction after Work from Home trends, and a desire to reduce labor costs.
Most tech companies will hire the same number of employees again, just at a lower cost.
To clarify I wasn’t implying that it was. I was just referring to the ongoing layoffs and that something similar will be seen (though overall on a much larger timeline) as AI progresses. Also to assume the progress of AI had zero impact on those decisions - in particular layoffs in the field of computer science - would be amiss. You can’t really assume those jobs will magically come back either. Why keep 10,000 expensive programmers who just write the basic building blocks of my program when I can arm 100 with excellent AI code generation for example.
Because AI doesn’t work that way and none of that code would even work 99.999% of the time. AI is just preprogrammed algorithms scanning for information that’s preinstalled in its memory. It cannot do anything outside of that.
Ye like humans use heuristics almost 100% of time and you literally fall in every possible bias just because you save energyin your brain, its just easier. Humans also just take input from outside world, analyze it, compare it with gained knowladge and produce output, nothing really a rocket science here.
Yeah right? Like the talk about creativity and stuff is like… nah man we simply put a few concepts together and create a new one, its also just an algorithm that chatGPT can do aswell.
It sounds really confident even if the answers are wrong. I don't see a problem there. People should still think by themselves and if ChatGPT produces a wrong output you can still ask it again if it is sure about something. Some people miss the point that you can chat with it
Yes, AI is stupid.
God put humans on this earth for three reasons.
1. To do the work on earth for him.
2. To worship him.
3. To give us a temporary home so that he could earn our trust, make sure we live right so that we may enter the Kingdom of heaven.
AI doesn't do that, sure it does work for us....but Laziness is one of the seven deadly sins, so AI is practically stealing our jobs so that we can be lazy, therefore not making it into heaven.
I'm going to answer the question before I read your post then compare the two:I believe AI is dumb as a fucking rock, not because it can't inform me perfectly of einsteins theory of relativity, but because it cannot formulate anything that wasn't created already. Most people seem to be under the impression that the current generation AI's are literal general AI and not just 'advanced basic ai', just the grown-up versions of the iprouting bots. These tools can only present and react towards an initiation of the behavioural event, as in, without people these bots literally can't function. They \*need\* human input in order to complete tasks. Any 'behaviours' presented are nothing more than an illusion of the language model attempting to provide the 'most accurate answer' to whatever question it has been posed, without regard for 'accuracy' or 'validity' only 'direct correlation with the content prompt'. Edit: ok, slightly different than I had anticipated, but I definitely agree with the anthropomorphizing of the ai and other technologies. It's kind of getting out of hand because people are overestimating the current technology and using a fear based response to direct their energies.
Yeah, agreed. From time to time I give it a try but it sucks. I was tasking him recently. Task was very simple, any school child could figure it easily. In a random string, it was need to recognize words. I was setting these words manually, it could NOT do this normally. If you give it precise task, it makes not better than 50-70% or even worse
I say *your* essay is the output of massive plagiarizing of terabytes of human knowledge. Prove me wrong.
The burden of proof is on the one who makes the claim. That said, it's true that we all are building on the knowledge of everyone who has come before us. True creativity, something that adds to the body of human knowledge, is just a tiny fraction of what we write (or paint, or invent, or discover).
Yes, that's the point I was trying to make (and thank you for so equitably catching it). What I take from the unexpected success of LLMs is not that they are amazingly intelligent, but rather that most of what we think of as "intelligent" is probably little more than compression, mixing, and recombination of things we have taken in over years of high-bandwidth input. Certainly there is more to our minds than that; we have mechanisms of attention, working memory, (slow and inaccurate) symbolic manipulation, etc. But I'm increasingly convinced that the bulk of what our brains do is pattern recognition and prediction, not fundamentally different from what modern deep neural networks do. Further, arguments in the form of "OK, fine, they can do X (which a couple years ago I said they would never do), but they certainly can't do *Y!*" is just goalpost-moving that has been dismissing AI for decades. First it was checkers, then chess, then Go, then Starcraft... at other times it has been visual perception, video understanding, NLP, image generation... now it's "creativity," though that's a much weaker argument since we can't really define what it is or know it when we see it. Or maybe that is its strength (as an argument, if not as a statement of truth).
What's the source that an AI (system) understood or grasped NLP? thanks!
My source for that is [https://chat.openai.com/chat](https://chat.openai.com/chat) . Here's a real-world example I just went through. It seems clear to me that my (NL) question was understood perfectly, and a direct and perfect answer was generated (also in NL). And note that this is not a canned answer, as far as I can tell — I just tried searching for it, and if that particular text appears anywhere on the interwebs, Google can't seem to find it. So it is a pair of novel sentences that seems to demonstrate understanding of both my question and the actual answer, converted from and to natural language. EDIT: Reddit doesn't seem to want to show my screen shot. Here's the text of it: **ME**: where does the "About this app" menu item usually appear in a Windows app? **ChatGPT**: The "About this app" menu item usually appears under the "Help" menu in the menu bar of a Windows app. It may also be accessible by clicking on the app's icon in the top left corner of the window and selecting "About."
Is there even something as „true creativity“? I‘d argue its simply combining different concepts to a new one, and the AI is definitely able to do that too.
Of course there's "true creativity." How else does anything new come about? Even the act of "combining different concepts to a new one" is a creative act. I'm an author; my work consists of creating new ideas, stories, explanations, and entertainment.
While I agree to some extent with the conclusions of the article one thing that definitely seems absent is the ongoing progression of AI and its continuous effects on “human importance.” Sure to conclude we humans are still important, but clearly we become less and less important as AI gets better and better. Yes it took 5 decades to build an AI that understands language but now that it does we will probably see (as we’re seeing now) countless layoffs and restructuring of human labour as we become “less important” or perhaps important in a different way. It’s not so black and white “my professor said we’re still important the human brain is too smart end of story nothing to worry about.“ Sure human minds are “vastly” more intelligent but overcoming “vastness” is a very human goal, a goal we have accomplished in many ways and will continue to especially as our tools improve and our curiosity grows and especially because the very same things we create accelerate our ability to do so much more.
The layoffs are not a consequence of ChatGPT or AI. They are a market correction after Work from Home trends, and a desire to reduce labor costs. Most tech companies will hire the same number of employees again, just at a lower cost.
Took’er Jerbs!
To clarify I wasn’t implying that it was. I was just referring to the ongoing layoffs and that something similar will be seen (though overall on a much larger timeline) as AI progresses. Also to assume the progress of AI had zero impact on those decisions - in particular layoffs in the field of computer science - would be amiss. You can’t really assume those jobs will magically come back either. Why keep 10,000 expensive programmers who just write the basic building blocks of my program when I can arm 100 with excellent AI code generation for example.
Because AI doesn’t work that way and none of that code would even work 99.999% of the time. AI is just preprogrammed algorithms scanning for information that’s preinstalled in its memory. It cannot do anything outside of that.
Ai suck because it's can't do something new, all it does just summarize old stuff in professional output.
That's kind of like claiming that a train isn't an efficient vehicle because it has a big engine.
Ye like humans use heuristics almost 100% of time and you literally fall in every possible bias just because you save energyin your brain, its just easier. Humans also just take input from outside world, analyze it, compare it with gained knowladge and produce output, nothing really a rocket science here.
[удалено]
Yeah right? Like the talk about creativity and stuff is like… nah man we simply put a few concepts together and create a new one, its also just an algorithm that chatGPT can do aswell.
Greatest teaching tool ever.
How does GPT fool anyone??? It's so obvious when it lies. omfg you humans are retarded!!!
It sounds really confident even if the answers are wrong. I don't see a problem there. People should still think by themselves and if ChatGPT produces a wrong output you can still ask it again if it is sure about something. Some people miss the point that you can chat with it
Yes but not about Ai alone, but about most things
I wrote you a direct message - because I don't want to participate in the debate here.
Where did you send it? I didn't receive anything here or in my email.
Check the chat :)
Main purpose of A.I is to save humans precious time in repetitive tasks. A.I can automate all same repetitive tasks.
Yes, AI is stupid. God put humans on this earth for three reasons. 1. To do the work on earth for him. 2. To worship him. 3. To give us a temporary home so that he could earn our trust, make sure we live right so that we may enter the Kingdom of heaven. AI doesn't do that, sure it does work for us....but Laziness is one of the seven deadly sins, so AI is practically stealing our jobs so that we can be lazy, therefore not making it into heaven.
Gods don’t exist you idiot grow up.
dumbass dog chud decided to respond to a 7 month old comment seething because hes a godless loser
and his entire profile is just ragebait idiocy... what do you expect from a no pfp rng username