this post was submitted on 06 Aug 2023
1762 points (98.5% liked)
Programmer Humor
32000 readers
799 users here now
Post funny things about programming here! (Or just rant about your favourite programming language.)
Rules:
- Posts must be relevant to programming, programmers, or computer science.
- No NSFW content.
- Jokes must be in good taste. No hate speech, bigotry, etc.
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
None of it is even AI, Predicting desired text output isn't intelligence
We never called if statements AI until the last year or so. It's all marketing buzz words. It has to be more than just "it makes a decision" to be AI, or else rivers would be AI because they "make a decision" on which path to take to the ocean based on which dirt is in the way.
Yeah, and highlighting that difference is what is important right now.
This is the first AI to masquerade as general artificial intelligence and people are getting confused.
This current thing doesn't have or need rights or ethics. It can't produce new intellectual property. It's not going to save Timmy when he falls into the well. We're going to need a new Timmy before all this is over
At this point i just interpret AI to be "we have lots of select statements and inner joins "
There are also threshold functions and gradient calculations.
Pick a number from 1 to 2^63 - 1 ~= 9 x 10^19 randomly. See AI is easy /s
Echo $RANDOM og ai
I do agree, but on the other hand...
What does your brain do while reading and writing, if not predict patterns in text that seem correct and relevant based on the data you have seen in the past?
I've seen this argument so many times and it makes zero sense to me. I don't think by predicting the next word, I think by imagining things both physical and metaphysical, basically running a world simulation in my head. I don't think "I just said predicting, what's the next likely word to come after it". That's not even remotely similar to how I think at all.
Inject personal biases :)
AI is whatever machines can't do yet.
Playing chess was the sign of AI, until a computer best Kasparov, then it suddenly wasn't AI anymore. Then it was Go, it was classifying images, it was having a conversation, but whenever each of these was achieved, it stopped being AI and became "machine learning" or "model".
Machine learning is still AI. Specifically, it's a subset of AI.
Always remember that it will only get better, never worse.
They said "computers will never do x" and now x is assumed.
There's a difference between "this is AI that could be better!" and "this could one day turn into AI."
Everyone is calling their algorithms AI because it's a buzzword that trends well.
That's not technically correct unless the thresholds in those if statements are updated on the information gained for the data.
It usually also gets worse while it gets better.
But I take your point. This stuff will continue to advance.
But the important argument today isn't over what it can be, it's an attempt to clarify for confused people.
While the current LLMs are an important and exciting step, they're also largely just a math trick, and they are not a sign that thinking machines are almost here.
Some people are being fooled into thinking general artificial intelligence has already arrived.
If we give these unthinking LLMs human rights today, we expand orporate control over us all.
These LLMs can't yet take a useful ethical stand, and so we need to not rely on then that way, if we don't want things to go really badly.
I thought this was an inciteful comment. Language is a kind of 'view' (in the model view controller sense) of intelligence. It signifies a thought or meme. But, language is imprecise and flawed. It's a poor representation since it can be misinterpreted or distorted. I wonder if language based AIs are inherently flawed, too.
Edit: grammar, ironically
I'm not a native English speaker so I might be wrong, but isn't "sadism" also covers "schadenfreude"?
"Mastery of language is mastery of human thought." is easy to prove false.
The current batch of AIs is an excellent data point. These things are very good at language, and they still can't even count.
The average celebrity provides evidence that it is false. People who excel at science often suck at talking, and vice-versa.
We didn't talk our way to the moon.
Even when these LLMs master language, it's not evidence that they're doing any actual thinking, yet.
Depends on your definition of AI, and everyone's definition is different.