dandi8

Disgusting.

Per the original reply to your top comment:

Are you seriously comparing using generative diffusion models to applying a chroma key in video editing?

So you agree, then, that comparing the two is like comparing apples to oranges?

I can only assume your reading comprehension failed you.

Were these green screen AIs trained on the entirety of human knowledge (in many cases destructively)? Are they regurgitating original works verbatim? Do they need giant hyperscaler data centers to run? Are they used to justify firing people en masse? Do they steal and poison massive amounts of water from communities? Are they used to prop up an insane stock market? Are they used to create misinformation at a never-seen-before scale?

If I'm teleoperating it myself, I may as well do the chores myself.

I'm also dubious of the claim that AI will get "good enough" in the few years (at best) it takes the company to fold.

Who's gonna hire an Indian to teleoperate it, then?

Physical isn't any safer these days, due to online DRM and the fact that day 1 patches contain most of the game.

Well, I suppose we can at least agree to disagree.

I have seen so much incoherent but confident nonsense produced by LLMs (mainly by frontier models trying to do even basic software development) that I would not be able to say in good conscience that thought was involved. Junior developers would have done better. The experience definitely fits the behavior of a word predictor, though.

Having seen what LLMs claim about software development, my stance is that absolutely no one should trust at face value what these models output. They're Dunning-Kruger machines.

As for producing new ideas, these models are as creative as a random number generator. Coincidentally, that's what is responsible for faking their creativity (the "temperature" parameter).

I guess that's all I feel like saying in this particular thread.

I trust AI far more than I do a random person. They have access to far more information, and are more likely to be correct about any particular question asked.

That is a terrifying stance. And, frankly, embarrassing.

"OpenAI admits AI hallucinations are mathematically inevitable, not just engineering flaws": https://www.computerworld.com/article/4059383/openai-admits-ai-hallucinations-are-mathematically-inevitable-not-just-engineering-flaws.html

OpenAI, the creator of ChatGPT, acknowledged in its own research that large language models will always produce hallucinations due to fundamental mathematical constraints that cannot be solved through better engineering, marking a significant admission from one of the AI industry’s leading companies. [...] The research proposed “explicit confidence targets” as a solution, but acknowledged that fundamental mathematical constraints meant complete elimination of hallucinations remained impossible.

I think the Wikipedia definition of thought is quite good.

However, I have a feeling whatever definition I came up with, you'd just claim LLMs fit into it because their output is sometimes somewhat coherent.

You can claim that technically LLMs "think" because the output text sometimes contains conclusions, and sometimes they're even rational, even though the LLMs still struggle with counting Rs in "strawberry".

I find that disingenuous because it implies that the LLM is in any way aware of anything, that it can passively form ideas.

Most importantly, it implies that you can trust it for even basic reasoning. That you can trust the plagiarism machine that tells you that you should put glue on your pizza, eat rocks and walk to the car wash instead of driving, or that you will be able to trust it at some point in the future.

Whatever definition of thinking we use, it should include a simple rule - that the allegedly thinking entity should demonstrate that intelligence by being able to reliably answer simple queries correctly. Humans, by and large, can do that. LLMs fail at it miserably. If the LLMs were truly thinking, that should be shocking. Understanding the underlying technology - and that it is not truly reasoning - makes it obvious and expected.

Even OpenAI admitted hallucinations are an unfixable mathematical inevitability - something you handwaved as a matter of time to fix. No, the fact that humans can have hallucinations is not comparable.