Re:AI is not artificial intelligence
by nullsense on Thursday May 04, 2023 @05:39AM
(#35813085)
The annoying thing about this argument is that, to the degree it solves my problem, I don't actually care how it works.
In the last 6 months I have seen so many cycles of models getting released, people complaining they don't do this and that, better models getting released, people complaining they do more than they used to but still not everything, models being stacked together to bridge yet more if the gaps, people having less to complain about but complaining again, and I'm sure people will release better stacked models.
The point is GPT was the same thing as GPT-2, and GPT-3. GPT-4 is maybe slightly different but not by much. But I can actually do useful work with GPT-4, and so I no longer care what anyone has to say. I just use it to solve the portion of my problems that it has proven to me that it can and I move on with my day.
If someone on the internet wants to get their knickers in a twist over the semantics, then that's cool. In the meantime other people will just continue to train better and better models as existing models get complained about and the amount of useful work I can do with it will keep going up as a result.
Re:AI is not artificial intelligence
by BulgarianIdiot on Thursday May 04, 2023 @06:35AM
(#35813409)
It's not even an argument. It's just stupid denialism. It reminds me of the people insisting on the cusp of abolishing slavery, that African Americans are not technically people, so they can't really think, and so on. And providing lots and lots of pseudo-scientific, but plausibly sounding (at the time) and partially technically correct reasons why this is so. An example of this is the phrenology scene in Django Unchained.
You can always dress your bullshit in half-truths.
In this case, this person's description of AI is not wrong, but... it also described human intelligence. There's absolutely no difference.
Re:AI is not artificial intelligence
by inferiordev on Thursday May 04, 2023 @06:06AM
(#35813230)
The loom is worthless because it:
- does not produce novel weaves
- is not aware that it is weaving
- is made of bits of metal
- does not understand cloth
- is promoted by some people who were wrong before
Re:AI is not artificial intelligence
by BulgarianIdiot on Thursday May 04, 2023 @06:32AM
(#35813387)
Yet another galaxy brain revealing to us that AI is a pattern processing network of layered transforms. Like our brain also is, by the way. Move along, nothing to see here.
But apparently buzzwords are important for funding, or something.. There are toasters on Amazon boasting AI capabilities, the acronym has lost all credibility.
Re:AI is not artificial intelligence
by scottlawson on Thursday May 04, 2023 @08:32PM
(#35823944)
Expert systems are not the same thing as today's AI is. Expert systems are characterized by sequences of pre coded if then rules. Today's AI is very different, largely based on consuming vast amounts or data. I'm not sure if you understand the distinction. You can also make expert systems using "today's AI", but most people well versed in the field would not confuse the concepts.
In the last 6 months I have seen so many cycles of models getting released, people complaining they don't do this and that, better models getting released, people complaining they do more than they used to but still not everything, models being stacked together to bridge yet more if the gaps, people having less to complain about but complaining again, and I'm sure people will release better stacked models.
The point is GPT was the same thing as GPT-2, and GPT-3. GPT-4 is maybe slightly different but not by much. But I can actually do useful work with GPT-4, and so I no longer care what anyone has to say. I just use it to solve the portion of my problems that it has proven to me that it can and I move on with my day.
If someone on the internet wants to get their knickers in a twist over the semantics, then that's cool. In the meantime other people will just continue to train better and better models as existing models get complained about and the amount of useful work I can do with it will keep going up as a result.
You can always dress your bullshit in half-truths.
In this case, this person's description of AI is not wrong, but... it also described human intelligence. There's absolutely no difference.
It's literally what artificial means.
The code that controlled the paddle in pong? Also AI.
(If it ever actually becomes sapient it will be a synthetic intelligence, rather than artificial.)
What is an example of artificial intelligence?
But apparently buzzwords are important for funding, or something.. There are toasters on Amazon boasting AI capabilities, the acronym has lost all credibility.