Re:On the dangers of stochastic parrots: Can language models...
by wizzwizz4 on Saturday January 14, 2023 @09:21PM
(#34386171)
> but you're unsatisfied with it anyway because you now realize that the word "swim" is reserved for living creatures.
There are swimming robots.[0][1] Swimming is qualitatively different to what submarines do. The exception is helical flagella, not robots.
Re:On the dangers of stochastic parrots: Can language models...
by LarryMullins on Saturday January 14, 2023 @10:58PM
(#34386602)
> The exception is helical flagella, not robots.
Don't you think they're an exemption because they're alive? If seals had propellers we'd still say they swim. Squids use jet propulsion and we still say they swim; do jetskis also swim? Somehow not.
And more to the point, nobody believes that "it thinks" is sufficient qualification for a job when hiring a human, so why would it be different when buying a machine? Whether or not the machine "thinks" doesn't address the question of whether or not the machine is capable of doing the jobs you want it to do. Anybody who neglects to evaluate the functional capability of the machine is simply a fool.