but the shareholders?
Looks like they would have been better off too. I think those are the humans he is talking about.
I was a programmer for 25 years. I always figured I could have made a contribution to AI research, but the opportunity never came up (I was too busy writing Skype clones for cable companies and ISPs that were never used by anyone). I regretted this for a long time, but not any more. I never imagined AI would be this fucking bad, “bad” in the sense of bad for humanity and just plain bad as a product.
It’s cause it’s not AI
FWIW I always felt my contribution would have been towards “real” AI rather than the current pseudo-AI stuff that is all the rage. In addition to being a programmer, I also have a background in evolutionary biology and neuroanatomy. The “neural networks” that are part of current AI were originally based on the understanding of how neurons function that existed in the 1970s, and they were (and are still) a poor implementation of that level of knowledge. IMHO true AI can be achieved by more accurate simulation of how real neurons and real neural networks function and how they have come about in the real world through hundreds of millions of years of evolution by natural selection.
That being said, “real” AI is probably going to be even worse for humanity than this current stuff is, so at least I’m glad that blood won’t be on my hands.
I feel for you. Going into machine learning was my dream to. Until this. I wanted to work on true artificial intelligence based on the human brain.
I really don’t understand this perspective, and it’s my biggest gripe with Chollet and his ilk as well. What, in your opinion, makes neuro-symbolic AI inherently superior to (the currently better performing) statistical methods?
I really don’t understand this perspective
This is honestly a strange thing to say. The only examples we have on the planet today of what we consider true intelligence are living animals. Why wouldn’t it at least be possible that the properties of the signaling units that comprise these existing, observed intelligences (i.e. neurons) are fundamental to the task of replicating these intelligences? It seems to me it’s the “statistical methods” that have yet to prove they’re capable of producing true intelligence.
I will retreat to the fact that I said “true AI can be achieved by more accurate simulation of how real neurons and real neural networks function” and not “can only be achieved”. Time will tell which approach works better.
I don’t know who Chollet is but I’ll look him up. Thanks for the reference.
Edit: the downvote was predictable. Nice job.
It most definitely is AI, and the guy is a Nobel Price winner for making a breakthrough in AI programming.
Contrary to you, he actually knows what he is talking about.Just because he has a novel prize doesn’t make him immune to propaganda.
I never made any claims about that, that doesn’t change that claiming it’s not AI is moronic. We absolutely have AI, and have had it since at least the 80’s.
Claiming we don’t is moronic.
We’ve extincted plenty of other species. Eventually we’d start on ourselves.
Start? We’ve been embracing the Great Filter like a long lost friend.
YOU DON’T SAY??
It’s a problem with human greed, not AI. If we didn’t have greedy oligarch parasites then AI wouldn’t be nearly as much of a problem. NIMBYism is destroying the future of the USA.
That is only some of the problem.
See the study where they compared brain activity with or without. Also, if the AI users were cut off from being able to use, they at least in the moment became less capable of doing the tasks than they were before they were being allowed to use AI. Study can’t speak to lasting impact, but they clearly showed people would get worse in the moment.
Studies have shown that folks that employ a rich writing style early in life are less likely to show dementia late in life and people who have very lazy writing styles are likely to have dementia. Obviously too early to say for sure if this applies to LLM, but leaning on LLM for writing might be similarly lazy.
No shit.
It’s Superintelligence, stop calling it ai or i’ll throw a plate of ketchup against the wall again, hmp!
-orange
Maybe if we keep the AI but loss the Oligarchy…
duh.
huh, if only we stopped sooner…
aS iT tUrNs oUt!
Geoffrey Hinton, who no one can say with a straight face “doesn’t understand AI”, also says they are conscious. But none of you screechers, yelling to the clouds from your grumble-goon caverns, wanna hear that.
Here’s me with a straight face: Anyone who claims LLMs are conscious “does not understand AI”.
Thank you for adding clarity to the understanding that holds your viewpoint.
I don’t know him, so I can’t speculate on his chatbot knowledge, but if we assume he does know how they work, I can definitively say he doesn’t understand consciousness.
His body of work speaks for itself. I can assume since you are attempting to stand against his knowledge with your own, that your understanding is equally as proven.
Can you link me to some of your work?
First, do you genuinely believe LLMs are conscious?
No more than I believe Broca’s area and Wernicke’s area are conscious, but neither exist in a vacuum devoid of the rest of the organism and surrounding universe.
So… Yes or no?
I’m sorry I didn’t realize that was confusing. A specialized chunk of the human mind used for language, removed from the rest of a human and the universe, does not reach a conscious threshold worthy of major consideration. Just like a severed finger. A bare LLM, removed from the rest of the the digital apparatus and the universe, does not reach a conscious threshold worthy of major consideration
Now, I’ll ask you one. Do you think there are conscious non-human animals? Or do you believe that is a trait only humans possess?
Consciousness is having a subjective experience. Yes lots of animals are conscious.
Wow, see how I answered concisely without typing a paragraph of fluff?
removed from the rest of the digital apparatus and the universe
Speak plainly, Ascian. Does that mean there are circumstances (in today’s world) in which you would consider an LLM to have a subjective experience?
Can understand AI all he wants. Doesn’t mean he understands consciousness
So are you of the belief that “we don’t know” or “definitely not”?
It’s wild he says that they’re conscious when science & philosophy as a whole still don’t really understand consciousness.
So it sounds like he’s an arrogant moron with a very specific expertise he likes to apply outside of where it should be applied.
He has a long history of anything but. You obviously have a very reactionary set of fixed beliefs though.
