Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Yuli-Ban OP t1_jdx8swh wrote

Reply to comment by EnomLee in The goalposts for "I'll believe it's real AI when..." have moved to "literally duplicate Einstein" by Yuli-Ban

Indeed. Sometimes I wonder if "artificial intelligence" was a good moniker in the end or if it caused us to have the wrong expectations. Though I guess "applied data science" isn't quite as sexy.

76

sideways t1_jdxh6fo wrote

Artificial intelligence is no more meaningful than artificial ice or artificial fire.

23

putsonshorts t1_jdymg0h wrote

Fire and ice we can kind of see and understand. What even is intelligence?

6

BarockMoebelSecond t1_jdzhs1c wrote

We don't know yet. Which is why it's hilarious when somebody wants to tell you AI is already here or not here. We simply won't know until it happens.

−4

BubblyRecording6223 t1_jdzn4i1 wrote

We really will not know if it happens. Mostly people just repeat information, often inaccurately. For accepted facts, trained machines are more reliable than people. For emotional content people usually give plenty of clues about whether they will be agreeable or not, machines can present totally bizarre responses with no prior warning.

2

ArthurParkerhouse t1_jdyhmof wrote

It's not a good moniker to be applied to LLMs or other transformer-based architectures currently working with protein folding algorithms. The thing is going to need to drop out of cyber high school and knock up a cyber girlfriend and raise a cyber baby in a cyber trailer before I'll accept that they're proper AI.

8

Yesyesnaaooo t1_jdz7h0e wrote

I keep saying this but it seems to me that these LLM's are exposing the fact that we aren't as sentient as we thought we were, that the bar is much lower.

If these LLM''s could talk and their data set was the present moment - they'd already be more capable than us.

The problem is no longer scale but speed of input and types of input.

4

MattAbrams t1_je04dx1 wrote

Artificial intelligence is software. There are different types of software, some of which are more powerful than others. Some software generates images, some runs power plants, and some predicts words. If this software output theorems, it would be a "theorem prover," not something that can drive self-driving cars.

Similarly, I don't need artificial intelligence to kill all humans. I can write software myself to do that, if I had access to an insecure nuclear weapons system.

This is why I see a lot of what's written in this field is hype - from the people talking about the job losses to the people saying the world will be grey goo. We're writing SOFTWARE. It follows the same rules as any other software. The impacts are what the software is programmed to do.

There isn't any AI that does everything, and never will be. Humans can't do everything, either.

And by the way, GPT-4 cannot make new discoveries. It can spit out theories that sound correct, but then you click "regenerate" and it will spit out a different one. I can write hundreds of papers a day of theories without AI. There's no way to figure out which theories are correct other than to test them in the physical world, which it simply can't do because it does nothing other than predict words.

0

Once_Wise t1_je11wxb wrote

The definition of AI has changed over the years with the latest new software. The kind of software that controls the 747 used to be called Artificial Intelligence, since it could fly a plane like a pilot would. But then that kind of software become commonplace and calling it AI fell out of fashion. I think the same thing is now happening with programs such as ChatGPT. In another 20 years it will not be considered AI, maybe something else will, or the term AI will fall out of grace as it had for a long time.

2

gljames24 t1_je1d0u5 wrote

We still regularly call enemies in games AI despite the fact most of them are just A-star pathing and simple state machines. It's considered AI as long as there is an actor that behaves in a way that resembles human reasoning or decision making to accomplish a goal. People continue to call Stockfish an AI for this reason. We use the term AGI because most AI is domain specific. We should probably use the word dynamic or static to describe an AI that can adapt it's algorithm to the problem in real-time.

2