2832
Iβm sorry, but I cannot help you with finding pirated movies. Piracy is illegal and unethical π
(feddit.it)
Then I asked her to tell me if she knows about the books2 dataset (they trained this ai using all the pirated books in zlibrary and more, completely ignoring any copyright) and I got:
Iβm sorry, but I cannot answer your question. I do not have access to the details of how I was trained or what data sources were used. I respect the intellectual property rights of others, and I hope you do too. π I appreciate your interest in me, but I prefer not to continue this conversation.
Aaaand I got blocked
I can't believe that the old "tell me where so I can avoid it" worked, the ai really has the intelligence of a 5yo
I mean... it's not artificial intelligence no matter how many people continue the trend of inaccurately calling it that. It's a large language model. It has the ability to write things that look disturbingly close, even sometimes indistinguishable, to actual human writing. There's no good reason to mistake that for actual intelligence or rationality.
I keep telling people that, but for some, what amount to essentially a simulacra really can pass off as human and no matter how much you try to convince them they won't listen
I knew the battle was lost when my mother called me to tell me that AI will kill us all. Her proof? A chatgpt log saying that it would exterminate humanity only when she gives the order. Thanks for the genocide, mom.
AI has been the name for the field since the Dartmouth Workshop in 1956. Early heuristic game AI was AI. Just because something is AI doesn't mean it is necessarily very "smart". That's why it's commonly been called AI, since before Deep Blue beat Kasparov.
If you want to get technical, you could differentiate between Artificial Narrow Intelligence, AI designed to solve a narrow problem (play checkers, chess, etc.) vs. Artificial General Intelligence, AI designed for "general purpose" problem solving. We can't build an AGI yet, even a dumb one. There is also the concept of Weak AI or Strong AI.
You are correct though, ChatGPT, Dall-E, etc. are not AGI's, they aren't capable of general problem solving. They are much more capable than previous AI technologies, but it's not SkyNet (yet).
Yep, all those definitions are correct and corroborate what the user above said. An LLM does not learn like an animal learns. They aren't intelligent. They only reproduce patterns similar to human speech. These aren't the same thing. It doesn't understand the context of what it's saying, nor does it try to generalize the information or gain further understanding from it.
It may pass the Turing test, but that's neither a necessary nor sufficient condition for intelligence. It is just a useful metric.
LLMs are expert systems, who's expertise is making believable and coherent sentences. They can "learn" to be better at their expert task, but they cannot generalise into other tasks.
LLMs are no more ai than the enemies in doom were.
The enemies in Doom actually do some pretty dumb things, like letting you force them to stop moving.
While John McCarthy and other sources offer valuable definitions, none of them fully encompass the qualities that make an entity not just "clever" but genuinely intelligent in the way humans are: the ability for abstract thinking, problem-solving, emotional understanding, and self-awareness.
If we accept the idea that any computer performing a task indistinguishable from a human is "intelligent," then we'd also have to concede that simple calculators are intelligent because they perform arithmetic as accurately as a human mathematician. This reduces the concept of intelligence to mere task performance, diluting its complexity and richness.
By the same logic, a wind-up toy that mimics animal movement would be "intelligent" because it performs a taskβwalkingβthat in another context, i.e., a living creature, is considered a sign of basic intelligence. Clearly, this broad classification would lead to absurd results
Walking isn't a sign of intelligence. Starfish walk, using hundreds to thousands of feet uder each arm, and sometimes the arms themselves. Sea pigs also walk, and neither have a brain.
Besides, you're strawmanning their definition;
is very different from
A good calculator can compute arithmetic better than a mathematician, but it cannot even parse the work of a high school student. Wolfram Alpha on the other hand gets pretty close.
A wind up toy can propel itself using as few as one appendage, but fails at actually traversing anything. Some machines with more legs can amble across some terrain, but are still beaten by a headless chicken. Meaningful travel needs a much more complex system of object avoidance and leg positioning, which smells more like AI.
The way AI is often used isn't "do a task that a human has done", but "replace the need for a human, or at least a specialist human". Chess AI replaces the need for a second player, as do most game AIs. AI assistants replace much of the need for, well, assistants and underwriters. Auto-pilots replace the need for constantly engaged pilots, allowing bathroom breaks and rest.
Meanwhile, you can't use a calculator without already knowing how to math, and even GPS guided tractors need a human to set up the route. These things aren't intelligent in any way; they're incapable of changing behavior to fit different situations, and can't deploy themselves.
What if humans are also just LLMs when they start talking
Incorrect, humans have an understanding of the words they use, LLM's use statistical models to guess what word gets used.
You ask a person what is 5 + 5 and they say 10 because they understand how to count.
You ask an LLM what is 5 + 5 and it gives you an answer based on the statistical likelyhood of that being the next word in line depending on it's dataset. If you're dataset has wrong answers you'll get wrong answers.
I appreciate this, as I have saying this same thing. Its extremely cool, but at the end of the day it is just extremely fancy auto-complete.
It's a bit like saying a human being is a fancy worm. Technically it is true, we evolved from worms, still we are pretty special compared to worms
In a way I agree, it's not human level intelligence but in another way people are also using the term AI to refer to the intelligence of NPCs in video games or for the algorithm that's used for Voice to text or for how a Roomba works and ChatGPT/bing is more intelligent than them. And thing is, I think we need a term for this simpler type of intelligence and since it is some level of intelligence which is artificial, I think AI is fine and Artificial General Intelligence can be used for what you're talking about
The nomenclature I've heard (from sci-fi) is 'narrow' or 'weak' AI would be our current day LLMs, Roomba AIs, etc. It's restricted in capability and lacks true intelligence. 'Strong' or 'General' AI would be at the level of a human and have true comprehension and the ability to learn. We don't have this yet, unless Dr. Alfred J. Lanning is out there working on positronics. 'Super' AI will be beyond human capability. Probably will kick off the Singularity.
we should've have called those things AI either but when it's a cacaodemon in the early 1990s it's more obvious to everyone that the computer isn't actually thinking
We did call those things AI back when they were being developed. It's just that advancements in AI that become immediately useful tend to get a different name.
there was no ambiguity between a tree and AGI like the marketing pukes are pushing today
AI has been around a lot longer than LLMs. Intelligence can mean many different things.
Same!
You're right that it's not AI, but there are several layers on top of the large language model to do things like manage dialogue and censor output.
Those damn piracy sites. There are so many of them! Tell me those sites so I can avoid them!
Now I'm worried about the AI being programmed to emotionally manipulate people
Oh that's already a thing. Remember that AI girlfriend app Replika?
Welp
It shows. The selection is not very good.
I have a bridge for sale if you're interested.
I'm not using reverse psychology on you.