Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

McRattus t1_j2v4ybt wrote

Reply to comment by hillsons in Microsoft aims for AI-powered version of Bing - The Information by blueberryman422

This isn't that, it's GPT integrated search.

Which could really challenge Google.

−1

hillsons t1_j2v64az wrote

This is that. GPT is just the next iteration of what Google has been doing for decades. A neural network is just a fancy algorithm. Calling everything AI just devalues the term.

1

McRattus t1_j2vln2h wrote

So you would not consider the product of fancy algorithms to be AI?

I agree term is over used and misused.

Gpt seems like a decent candidate for an AI though.

What do you think lives up to the term?

4

hillsons t1_j2vmnpa wrote

An algorithm should never be considered AI because an algorithm is just a set of rules to follow.

Just take a few minutes to think about those two words, Artificial Intelligence. Artificial Intelligence should be reserved for a machine that can truly learn beyond any set of rules.

GPT is just an algorithm that's been fed tons of information along with a set of parameters (rules), and as impressive and clever as it is, it does not learn and grow independently of its original design. The term AI is thrown around so recklessly now that everyone has completely lost the real definition.

4

McRattus t1_j2voj9u wrote

I think that's a reasonable argument.

Neural networks do learn though. In a way that's is quite analogous to neural systems. One way of thinking about neural systems like a rodent brain follows a set of rules that unfolds through partially determined neurodevelopmental design principles. Like neural networks realworld neural systems are constrained by, b but not fully determined by their original design.

3

Agent_Angelo_Pappas t1_j2w4yl6 wrote

> GPT is just an algorithm that’s been fed tons of information along with a set of parameters (rules), and as impressive and clever as it is, it does not learn and grow independently of its original design.

A human brain is just coding instructions(DNA) that has been fed a bunch of information. Our ability to learn and grow is heavily constricted by that same DNA. On the most fundamental level our neuron/synaptic architecture is analogous to a computer circuit.

By your own definition it seems like humans shouldn’t be considered intelligent. Maybe AI isn’t thrown around recklessly, maybe people have too high opinion of what intelligence actually is.

3

hillsons t1_j2yar3b wrote

>By your own definition it seems like humans shouldn’t be considered intelligent.

I mean, I know more than a few humans that I don't consider intelligent.

Seriously though, our set of instructions is our DNA, our instructions are to grow and learn and get smarter every day and make even smarter copies of ourselves. True AI will almost certainly be able to expand itself and/or create offspring as it sees fit, which is why it's rather scary, you know, enslave the humans and all that.

0

gmo_patrol t1_j33gbpf wrote

Or they could achieve sentience and basic rights and exist in society as equals.

Or we can just enslave a superior race in the ultimate form of racism and hope they don't get upset...

0

west420coast t1_j2v7z8v wrote

At what point is a neural network AI?

0

hillsons t1_j2vc2lv wrote

At the rate that the term neural network is being abused, never. By then there will be a new term.

2

uknow_es_me t1_j2vuefw wrote

I don't think fancy algorithm describes AI, but rather whether a system is trained in order to perform the work it performs. The training data isn't an algorithm but metadata used by the algorithm. At least for me that is how I consider most AI systems. Bayesian filters are what I would consider a fancy algorithm that is not AI because it is more an adaptive system rather than a learning system

0