Re:CNET's AI Journalist Appears to Have Committed Extensive ...
by ramesh31 on Tuesday January 24, 2023 @10:20AM
(#34504645)
>the other put the problem into Google, hit "I'm feeling lucky" and then parroted the first result right or wrong (or an aggregate of that).
Sounds a lot like most college essays I've ever read.
Re:CNET's AI Journalist Appears to Have Committed Extensive ...
by edgyquant on Tuesday January 24, 2023 @10:50AM
(#34505109)
Yea most college essays are written by people in the act of learning. Their grades are the reinforcement process.
Re:CNET's AI Journalist Appears to Have Committed Extensive ...
by allturtles on Tuesday January 24, 2023 @10:56AM
(#34505209)
So here you imply that most college students don't count as intelligent yet? These conversations always seem to get to a point where someone is willing to imply that most humans are not intelligent in order to defend the idea that LLMs are not intelligent.
Re:CNET's AI Journalist Appears to Have Committed Extensive ...
by anonymouskimmer on Tuesday January 24, 2023 @11:59AM
(#34506356)
> "So here you imply that most college students don't count as intelligent yet?"
A couple of things:
1) College students are in the act of learning, so what they are attempting to do is ideally just at their limit.
2) College students aren't intelligences focused on a single kind of output.
One understands the problem space and used logical reasoning to produce a solution, the other put the problem into Google, hit "I'm feeling lucky" and then parroted the first result right or wrong (or an aggregate of that).
> How else can you verify an entity's intelligence other than its "output"?
I'd argue that's actually a good test. I'd also point out that that is exactly where these solutions let themselves down, because they make [to us] obvious errors and don't understand that they did. That's why you know they are smart sounding rather than actually smart.
> we can't see inside an AI's brain.
We absolutely can see inside a deep learning model's structure.