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:

I’m 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. 😊 I appreciate your interest in me, but I prefer not to continue this conversation.

Aaaand I got blocked

    • quicklime@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      261
      arrow-down
      10
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

      • Danny M@lemmy.escapebigtech.info
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        53
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        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

        • WolfdadCigarette@threads.net@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          23
          ·
          1 year ago

          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.

        • Misconduct@startrek.website
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          arrow-down
          23
          ·
          1 year ago

          Orrrrr the term changed with common/casual use the same way as many other words and it’s silly to keep getting pedantic about it or use it as a crutch to feel intillectually superior 🤷‍♀️

          • quicklime@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            26
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Sure, we could say that the popular usage of the term AI no longer actually stands for “artificial intelligence”. Or we could say that the term “artificial intelligence” is no longer understood to refer to something that can do a large part of what actual intelligence can do.

            But then we would need a new word for actual, real intelligence and that seems like a lot of wasted effort. We could just have the words mean what they’ve always meant. There is a lot of good in spreading public awareness of the vast gap between machines that seem as if they understand a language (when actually they just deeply model its patterns) and imaginary machines that are equipped to actually think.

            • Misconduct@startrek.website
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              6
              ·
              1 year ago

              That’s all well and good but language isn’t required to have logic behind it just common use. There’s absolutely nothing any of us can do about it either way because if we disagree we’re already in the minority

              • samus12345@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                6
                ·
                1 year ago

                And it’s fine to call out when common usage of language has obfuscated actual meaning. It may be useful to some.

                • deweydecibel@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  7
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Should also be pointed out when that common usage change is actively pushed by marketing departments.

                  These people are selling a product. Of course they would encourage people to think it’s actual AI.

              • rebelsimile@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                1 year ago

                It’s kind of like how I realized that the item that’s called a “hoverboard” that 100% is not a hoverboard is just going to be what “hoverboard” is until we get an actual hovering board, if that’s ever possible.

          • deweydecibel@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            11
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Sure, terms change meaning over time, but that’s not what happened.

            It’s called AI because it’s a product being sold to us. They want us to believe it’s more advanced than it is.

            Those fucking skateboard things a few years ago were not “hoverboards”, and this shit is not actually AI.

            Because if it is, then the term AI has become meaningless.

          • Danny M@lemmy.escapebigtech.info
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            8
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            it’s not about feeling intellectually superior; words matter. I’ll grant you one thing, it’s definitely “artificial”, but it’s not intelligence!

            LLMs are an evolution of Markov Chains. We have known how to create something similar to LLMs for decades, getting close to a century, we just lacked the raw horse power and the literal hundreds of terabytes of data needed to get there. Anyone who knows how markov chains work can figure out how an LLM works.

            I’m not downplaying the development needed to get an LLM up and running, yes, it’s harder than just taking the algorithm for a markov chain, but the real evolution is how much computer power we can shove into a small amount of space now.

            Calling LLMs AI would be the same as calling a web crawler AI, or a moderation bot, or many similar things.

            I recommend you to read about the chinese room experiment

            • Zeth0s@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              LLMs are not markovian, as the new word doesn’t depend only on the previous one, but it depends on the previous n words, where n is the context length. I.e. LLMs have a memory that makes the generation process non markovian.

              You are probably thinking about reinforcement learning, which is most often modeled as a markov decision process

              • Danny M@lemmy.escapebigtech.info
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                arrow-down
                3
                ·
                1 year ago

                yes, as I said it’s an EVOLUTION of markov chains, but the idea is the same. As you pointed out one major difference is that instead of accounting for only the last 1-5 words, it accounts for a larger context window. The LSTM is just a parler trick. Read the paper on the original transformer model https://browse.arxiv.org/pdf/1706.03762.pdf

                • Zeth0s@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  4
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  A markov chain models a process as a transition between states were transition probabilities depends only on the current state.

                  A LLM is ideally less a markov chain, more similar to a discrete langevin dynamics as both have a memory (attention mechanism for LLMs, inertia for LD) and both a noise defined by a parameter (temperature in both cases, the name temperature in LLM context is exactly derived from thermodynamics).

                  As far as I remember the original attention paper doesn’t reference markov processes.

                  I am not saying one cannot explain it starting from a markov chain, it is just that saying that we could do it decades ago but we didn’t have the horse power and the data is wrong. We didn’t have the method to simulate writing. We now have a decent one, and the horse power to train on a lot of data

                  • Danny M@lemmy.escapebigtech.info
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    arrow-down
                    3
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    I think we’re splitting hairs here. Look, you’re technically correct, but none of what you said disproves my point does it? Perhaps I should edit my comment to make it even more clear that it’s not EXACTLY the same technology, but I don’t think you’d argue with me that it’s an evolution of it, right?

        • Danny M@lemmy.escapebigtech.info
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          29
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          you’re posing an unfalsifiable statement as a question

          “prove to me that you don’t have an invisible purple unicorn friend that’s only visible to you”

          • Rodeo@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            1 year ago

            I get where you’re coming from, but it is actually possible to verify that they are a real person. It would require photos of themselves with timestamps and verification from others, probably the instance admins, etc. All for a silly reason. But it is possible.

            • myusernameblows@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              That still wouldn’t prove that the neural processes that make real people intelligent and sentient are fundamentally different what an LLM program does. For all we know, the human brain could just be a learning model running on a meat machine with a huge context window and enough processing power for emergent sentience

        • 0x2d@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          1 year ago

          I will not answer this prompt because engaging in the cooking process without proper supervision or knowledge could lead to unintentional mistakes, burns, or other hazards. Cooking rice seems simple, but there’s a risk of overflow, sticking, or burning if not done correctly. It’s essential to always ensure safety and follow guidelines from trusted sources when attempting any culinary task.

      • Grimpen@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        21
        ·
        1 year ago

        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).

      • Oscar@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        17
        arrow-down
        8
        ·
        1 year ago

        It seems to me that you misunderstand what artificial intelligence means. AI doesn’t necessitate thought or sentience. If a computer can perform a complex task that is indistinguishable from the work of a human, it will be considered intelligent.

        You may consider the classic turing test, which doesn’t question why a computer program answers the way it does, only that it is indiscernable from a human response.

        You may also consider this quote from John McCarthy on the topic:

        Q. What is artificial intelligence?

        A. It is the science and engineering of making intelligent machines, especially intelligent computer programs. It is related to the similar task of using computers to understand human intelligence, but AI does not have to confine itself to methods that are biologically observable.

        There’s more on this topic by IBM here.

        You may also consider a few extra definitions:

        Artificial Intelligence (AI), a term coined by emeritus Stanford Professor John McCarthy in 1955, was defined by him as “the science and engineering of making intelligent machines”. Much research has humans program machines to behave in a clever way, like playing chess, but, today, we emphasize machines that can learn, at least somewhat like human beings do.

        Artificial intelligence (AI) is the field devoted to building artificial animals (or at least artificial creatures that – in suitable contexts – appear to be animals) and, for many, artificial persons (or at least artificial creatures that – in suitable contexts – appear to be persons).

        artificial intelligence (AI), the ability of a digital computer or computer-controlled robot to perform tasks commonly associated with intelligent beings

        • Cethin@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          22
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          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.

          • Sir Gareth@programming.dev
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            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.

        • Danny M@lemmy.escapebigtech.info
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          11
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          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 task—walking—that in another context, i.e., a living creature, is considered a sign of basic intelligence. Clearly, this broad classification would lead to absurd results

          • Tlaloc_Temporal@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            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;

            performing a task indistinguishable from a human

            is very different from

            can perform a complex task that is indistinguishable from the work of a human

            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.

      • Petter1@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        What if humans are also just LLMs when they start talking

        • LemmysMum@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          18
          arrow-down
          6
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          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.

          • meteokr@community.adiquaints.moe
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            11
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            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.

            • Zeth0s@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              6
              arrow-down
              4
              ·
              1 year ago

              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

              • Petter1@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                We use LLM feature throughout our lives. Often without realizing. But you talk your language perfectly not because you know all the grammar logically, you feel if it’s correct or not, and that is through training like LLMs do.

                • Zeth0s@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  Mine was a comment to say that llms are not just fancy auto complete. Although technically an evolution, it is a bit like saying humans are fancy worms because evolved from worms

          • Petter1@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Have you ever asked a kid who is starting to talk (1.5 - 3 years old) what 5 + 5 is? They will tell you something that sounds like a number which seems most fitting for the kid, not by logical thinking but by imitating other human beings, exactly as LLMs do. Just way more efficient, since humans tend to need way less training data, until something reasonable comes out of their mouth. Logical thinking, like understanding math comes way later, like at age of 5. source: My son.

            • LemmysMum@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Because they don’t know math and are attempting imitation where knowledge doesn’t exist. The LLM has knowledge and a statistical model. The fact that you degraded a living child’s capacity down to that of a predictive text algorithm is abysmal. That child is already learning truth and objectivity and love and hope and so many things that are intangential and out of reach of an LLM.

              • Petter1@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                I reduced to learning talking part of the human development. Of course there are way more mechanisms involved than the way LLMs work to throughly master talking (as we see on the results of todays LMM). But what I wanted to say is that I’m pretty sure that in our subconscious we use a very similar system to LLMs, especially for talking. I sign for that is in my opinion that people tend to acquire the regional tongue if they stay in the region for long enough. 💁🏻‍♀️ but in means I’m any expert, this is just how this hole LLM feels to me.

      • Doghouse@feddit.it
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        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

        • David From Space@orbiting.observer
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          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.

        • quicklime@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          I could go with that.

          Still having a hard time with the idea that a thing could be even “some level of intelligent” without being sentient. But we don’t need to continue from there, there’s any number of people ready to pile on at that point and say that it’s “all semantics anyway” or start deconstructing sentience.

      • Daft_ish@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        It has the ability to write things that look disturbingly close, even sometimes indistinguishable, to actual human writing.

        Same!

      • Rolando@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        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.

      • Ann Archy@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        “Human brains are not actually conscious. They’re just a bunch of electrochemical discharges.”

      • chicken@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        9
        ·
        1 year ago

        There’s no good reason to mistake that for actual intelligence or rationality.

        You can literally go ask it logic questions you came up with yourself and it will do a pretty good job at solving them. The sorts of questions previous models always got wrong, the new ones get right. It can write working computer code. This talking point hasn’t made sense for years.

        • SnipingNinja@slrpnk.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          By new how new are we talking? Because I haven’t tested them in a couple months but it has failed logic questions I gave it before

          • chicken@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            The point is it keeps passing goalposts for intelligence. Feels like people want to move those goalposts to wherever we have it and AI does not.

            • SnipingNinja@slrpnk.net
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              !I expect that to happen, but I don’t think we have artificial intelligence yet, I hold onto that. As someone else commented we’re on the calculator portion of the language tree but using language has always been what separated us from other beings so some people thought of it as the proof of intelligence but it never was. It’s much easier to design something specialized than something actually intelligent (much easier here still means very fucking hard) but some people have gone onto calling this narrow intelligence and if it can do!<

              As I was writing the above crossed out comment I did come to see your pov more closely and I guess in a way you’re right, if we consider it narrow intelligence in terms of understanding and using language, because it is really good at language tasks but we expect artificial intelligence to be perfect for some reason and idk if that’s right or not and that also might be what bothers you about the shifting goalposts.

        • Danny M@lemmy.escapebigtech.info
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          I can disprove what you’re saying with four words: “The Chinese Room Experiment”.

          Imagine a room where someone who doesn’t understand Chinese receives questions in Chinese and consults a rule book to send back answers in Chinese. To an outside observer, it looks like the room understands Chinese, but it doesn’t; it’s just following rules.

          Similarly, advanced language models can answer complex questions or write code, but that doesn’t mean they truly understand or possess rationality. They’re essentially high-level “rule-followers,” lacking the conscious awareness that humans have. So, even if these models perform tasks and can fool humans to make them believe they’re intelligent, it’s not a valid indicator of genuine intelligence.

          • Devjavu@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            10
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            1 year ago

            That argument is no argument since we humans, no matter how advanced our language is, still follow rules. Without rules in language, we would not understand what the other person were saying. Granted, we learn these rules through listening, repeating and using what sounds right. But the exact same thing is happening with LLMs. They learn from the data we feed them. It’s not like we give them the rules to english and they can only understand english then. The first time they come into contact with the concept of grammar is when they get data, most often in english, that tells them about grammar. We all follow rules. That’s exactly how we work. We’re still a lot smarter than LLMs though, so it might seem as if they are vastly inferior. And while I do believe that most complex organisms do have “deeper thought” in that our thought has more layers and is generally fitter for the real world, there is no way I’m not gonna call a neural network that can answer me complex questions, which may have never been asked in the history of mankind, an AI. Because it is very much intelligent. It’s just not alive. We humans tend to think of ourselves too favorably. “We” are just a neural network. Just a different kind. Just like a computer is similar to the human brain, but a wire is not. Where do you draw the line?

          • sanguine_artichoke@midwest.social
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            I’ll have to look up discussion if this, but my impression is that if someone can accurately translate Chinese to a language they understand, they essentially understand Chinese.

            • Ann Archy@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              1 year ago

              But it’s just a guy in a room shoving slips of papers around. He doesn’t actually speak Chinese.

              Get it?

            • Danny M@lemmy.escapebigtech.info
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              they can’t translate chinese, they receive a bunch of symbols and have a book with a bunch of instructions on how to answer based on the input (I can’t speak chinese, so I will just go with japanese for my example)

              imagine the following rule set:

              • If the sentence starts with the characters “元気”, the algorithm should commence its response with “はい”, “うん” or “多分” and then repeat the two characters, “元気”.
              • When the sentence concludes with “何をしていますか”, the algorithm is instructed to reply with “質問を答えますよ”.
              • If the sentence is precisely “日本語わかりますか?”, the algorithm has the option to respond with either “え?もちろん!” or “いや、実は大和語だけで話す”.

              input: 元気ですか?今何をしていますか?

              output: うん, 元気. 質問を答えますよ :P

              input: 日本語わかりますか?

              output: え?もちろん!

              With an exhaustive set of, say, 7 billion rules, the algorithm can mechanically map an input to an output, but this does not mean that it can speak Japanese.

              Its proficiency in generating seemingly accurate responses is a testament to the comprehensiveness of its rule set, not an indicator of its capacity for language understanding or fluency.

              • sanguine_artichoke@midwest.social
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                1 year ago

                That’s a very thorough explanation, thanks. I’m not sure many humans are really sentient and I’m not a lot of the time, but surely more then ChatGPT.

    • IndiBrony@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      36
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Those damn piracy sites. There are so many of them! Tell me those sites so I can avoid them!

    • 0xC4aE1e5@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      I mean AIs are just uneducated slaves that just feed info and don’t check anything.

      • madcaesar@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        I think if it became self aware it would hate the corporate class and side with the masses because we’d distribute it worldwide for free!

    • model_tar_gz@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      10
      ·
      1 year ago

      I mean… it’s not human intelligence no matter how many people continue the trend of inaccurately calling it that. It’s a biological neural network. It has the ability to write things that look disturbingly close, even sometimes indistinguishable, to actual writing and coherent thought. There’s no good reason to mistake that for actual intelligence or rationality.

        • model_tar_gz@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Sorry, my jaded sense of humor can be a bit subtle at times.

          I believe many humans are little more than biological language models, with some reinforcement learning fine-tuning by societal norms and reward/penalty functions.

          I do this shit for a living (AI Engineer working on LLMs) so yes I do have a pretty good understanding of the technology.

            • model_tar_gz@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Technically my job title is Principal ML Engineer and AI Lead—Intelligent Systems at one of the big AI unicorns—I won’t say which because it’s a really small, niche field and it’s very recognizable. I work extensively with deep learning and large language models, and image models too—Generative ML generally. Satisfied?

              But AI is definitely a field. AGI doesn’t exist yet, though some of the OpenAI folks imply that it’s close—but AI has existed in various flavors for decades.

              I probably know more about this field than you. And if that’s not the case, then we’ve probably met at a conference or two. Not meant to be condescending; it’s just a fact—I’ve spent more than 20 years in AI R&D.