Machine Learning

1 readers

1 users here now

Community Rules:

Be nice. No offensive behavior, insults or attacks: we encourage a diverse community in which members feel safe and have a voice.
Make your post clear and comprehensive: posts that lack insight or effort will be removed. (ex: questions which are easily googled)
Beginner or career related questions go elsewhere. This community is focused in discussion of research and new projects that advance the state-of-the-art.
Limit self-promotion. Comments and posts should be first and foremost about topics of interest to ML observers and practitioners. Limited self-promotion is tolerated, but the sub is not here as merely a source for free advertisement. Such posts will be removed at the discretion of the mods.

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

communick@academy.garden

[D] Without a clear leader in AI do you think the race to AGI will start to get chaotic? (alien.top)

submitted 11 months ago by Ok_Reality2341@alien.top to c/machinelearning@academy.garden

20 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Title really - right now the leader of OpenAI is blurry, which isn’t good for the industry to follow.

We need a strong leader to focus our efforts, but if this isn’t the case - perhaps it’ll get chaotic?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] theoneandonlytegaum@alien.top 1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Alright, I'm tired of this AGI stuff getting around. A bit of context, I have a master in generative AI and currently pursuing a PhD in explainable NLP.

Chat-GPT, and LLMs in general, are not remotely close to being an AGI. The best they can do is construct a pseudo representation of words' meaning (which, if we consider words to be the main descriptor of our world, could be a world representation).

They then use this word representation and try to find the closest ones that make sens together. It is essentially like counting from 1 to 5 and thinking, I see that the closest number after 1 is 2 and so on.

Granted, they have a really good representation of our language and that is what makes them so believable. But in reality they don't "think", they just compute distances in a really smart and complex manner.

However, one philosophical aspect that resonate with LLMs is in how we represent the world around us. Is it using only words? But then our representation is linked with language, which differs between person. How did we represent our world without words?

[–] slashdave@alien.top 1 points 11 months ago

Is it using only words?

Clearly not