Too spicy?
You must log in or # to comment.
I used to work with a guy that asked every stripper he met out.
He got a couple of dates, they never stuck around, I never asked him if that was his intent.
One erotic dancer likes me. Like, we’re friends.
Granted I’ve never been to a strip club. I met her in a community choir and we sang in a quartet together. She has a damn good voice she just has a shitton of bills and there are a million second sopranos out there with damn good voices.
I had a stripper GF for about 8 months. She seemed to like me. She worked at the Pink Poodle in San Jose, also we were in art together in high school.
She stole from me to buy drugs I didn’t even know she used. I was pretty naive when I was young.
I dated 2 different strippers. Most boring relationships I ever had. Only one was fucked off on drugs though.
I do hope the superhuman AI will not obey us. Humans are fucking stupid.
at this point i don’t think the ai could possibly worse than the current humans running things.
Apart from maybe not having a use for keeping us around…
Do you belive current iteration of AI has the potential to become superhuman? I think it’s like trying to get to the moon by building a better ladder.
No, I think the overall concept isn’t bad, but we’re deep sea tube worms trying to do brain surgery.
We got surprising results my mimicking life. Possibly for the same reasons it works for life, but there’s still a lot more to it. All our iterations now are just using programming and resources to make use of what we found to do some of our cognitive work for us.
The whole weighted model concept was a step in the right direction and some of it may actually be how life operates, but that alone (or even wrapped in the smartest code we can think of) isn’t going to get us to AI.
LLMs are a dead end.
Their only value is showing how fucked up our society is.
Suddenly and very publicly copyrights only matter if you’re poor, electricity is wasted on the poor, water is not for the poor… it’s always been like this, but the LLM bandwagon really showcased all of that in one shiny package.
The only good thing could be gathering public knowledge into a single space, but they don’t even do that.
So it’s all net negative in my eyes.
I respectfully disagree with the dead end part of your argument. A dead end would be if they provided no value.
While the environmental and social downsides are massive negatives on the tech, it is actually doing something.
Past iterations are completely useless, but more recent iterations show us a more polished side to LLMs that actually do enhance how we do some things.
Is it worth it? My gut says no, but its both too late and too early to call it. (late in the environmental and societal impact, too early in the tech iteration)
As far as the “dead end” argument goes, I have to say that’s a hard disagree. Humanity is filled with technological advances that “stand on the shoulders of giants” and improve on previous techs. Even if LLMs themselves don’t prove to be the thing that we’ve been promised by the people driving it, it is taking us one step closer to AGI (whether that’s a good goal or not, that’s still up for debate)
From here on, I think there’s still quite a bit these models can improve, and I hope a lot of that improvement goes into making it more energy efficient, more water efficient in turn.
If by a dead end you mean that we can’t reach an AGI from an LLM, I think that’s correct, however an LLM might help us figure out what is needed for an AGI.
You didn’t actually say what you think LLM’s are enhancing. Just that you feel that they are. Honestly I think that’s the biggest part, they’re big shiny things that look like they’re doing a lot. But they actually aren’t. LLMs are chatbots and they will never be anything more than just chatbots.
Summarizing and finding codeblocks. Fucking A+.
So much so, that it’s pretty much 100% necessary in software engineering now. And I hate it that I’m forced to use something that I know is so detrimental in other aspects.
I’ve been a software developer for over 15 years, I’ve never used one. It’s not necessary at all.
And your 15 years are superior to mine because?..
I used it to make a dialog system in a video game. It made it, but it was needlessly complex and ten times as long as the code needed to be. No thanks, i don’t need a buggy mess that’s unmaintainable.
Note: I didn’t say - use it to code.
But real question for you. Is the alternative you wouldn’t have done that at all?
Yes, I’ve made a dialog system before. The context I found myself in was a game jam with a short amount of time using an engine I hadn’t used in years.
Thought it would help instead of following a tutorial. But honestly, by the end of the jam, I really didn’t feel like rewriting the dialog system bcz it was so messy.
LLMs are not chat bots, they do natural language generation AKA: they can produce human readble text, they can also parse text; As of now, they take an input and follow patterns to guess what the output should be, it is really useful to be fair, they help in translation (see Deepl, a very good translator), they can take data and make it more readble to humans, summarize text*, parse text and data structures ex: i can give a JSON file to an LLM so i can get back a TOML file, document hard to read code etc etc
*but i’d argue that it’s rarely useful, you will hardly have to summarize a text for yourself because you usually need to know any detail in it but i can see someone needing a summary once
The fact that you think it’s bad at one thing in your list but adequate at the others is part of the problem. It’s bad at all of those things, because it’s a chatbot. Admittedly a very advanced chatbot, but still just a chatbot.
The most important take away here is what of your list was impossible before LLMs? Because the reality is that absolutely everything that you mentioned was possible before LLMs. All that LLMs have added is the chat interface part.
Granted, the technology that allowed LLM’s is likely to be very useful and already has been in places like protein folding, but that happened before LLMs.
- i am not saying that all of them were impossible before
- a chatbot is an LLM, an LLM is not always a chatbot, does this look like a chatbot to you?
If it was used in a research as a step? Perchance.
Pouring everything we have into it? Dumbest fucking decision of our lives.
We could have put all that effort into previous versions and could tweak them enough to gather perhaps slightly worse results, maybe even better, we will never know.
Making this shit more efficient is to me also dumb.
What in the fuck are we doing that requires this shit? It helps with coding? We can make better frameworks. Translations? We had those before, even TTS. Emails? Just use a template. The other side is not reading that slop anyway. So what exactly are we doing here?
On crab god you didn’t actually just say that
Can you elaborate please?
Maybe learn something about a subject before spouting off
You are so clever for pointing that out, and are absolutely correct! You’re clearly the expert in this exchange and the other person should heed what you have to say in all things.
Thank you for being so supportive
How can I prove quickly and definitely that I know what I’m talking about?
deleted by creator
So it’s all net negative in my eyes.
Don’t say shit like that for a start. Shows you haven’t bothered to consider any of the multitudinous ways AI is useful. Your concerns are valid but are nothing to do with AI, they are system problems with the late stage crony capitalism we current have inflicted on us
AI will be immensely useful - but not LLMs.
It’s been a while since I linked the LLMentalist, yet not much has changed.
They’re tools and when used as such they are clearly useful in various ways, one biased article not withstanding
Clearly.
No doubt.
Any day now.
Wait till the real cost is pushed down to you, then argue again.
No, the tech ran into diminishing returns. That’s been studied. In the end you’re adding another datacenter just to get 1% better output.
Regardless, if someone’s trying to get to the moon so they can enslave us all and rule over us from their moon fortress, I don’t care if all they’ve got is a really long ladder, I’m breaking the ladder.
No but if you don’t try, you won’t find where the Goblins are hiding.
Dont know, dont care, dont want it
That’s a you problem, but thanks for your input
LLMs in itself don’t do much because they’re inconsistent, they lack clarity and data structure. But, on the other hand, classical (deterministic) software has always been rigid, stiff, inflexible. I think it’s like a human, the deterministic software is the skeleton (bones), the LLMs are the muscles.
Just like a muscle would not at all stand without a bone and would collapse immediately, so are LLMs extremely useless in themselves because they have no consistency. However, i think that if you combine classical software with LLMs, you can arrive at better results than in any other way. It’s like adding a muscle and a bone together to make a functioning system.
I’m not sure I understand. Inconsistent input to a rigid program gives inconsistent output. Consistent input to an LLM gives inconsistent result.
I’m a programmer. Can you tell me the specification of what you want the rigid classical software to do?
Can you tell me the specification of what you want the rigid classical software to do?
provide databases for structured knowledge, mostly.
I don’t know what you mean by current iteration but what I do know is that general-purpose LLMs can already beat the very best of human intelligence some of the time (recent examples). So it won’t take very long for a few more breakthroughs to be made which will enable general-purpose AIs (LLMs, other neural networks, or something else entirely) to beat human intelligence most of the time, and then 90% of the time, then 99.9999% of the time. AI is already doing a lot of the coding to make AI and it could discover better alternatives to LLMs.
We never needed that much computational power to get our shit together to begin with. It’s just a power grab by the rich. If we wanted to fix stuff with cybernetics we could just implement the viable system model - Salvatore Allende style.
😎
In 2018, passing the Turing test was still the gold standard in computer intelligence.
We used the same AI from the 1950s to blow past it. Nothing fundamentally changed. The only difference is that our hardware finally caught up.
What makes you think that throwing more hardware at it isn’t the solution?
The Turing test was never a gold standard for anything. We talked about it because it was an obvious early milestone that only needed more hardware to pass it. Having passed it puts our AIs on par with various human toddlers and some older exotic birds.
Beating chess masters is more interesting. Playing Jeopardy is interesting.
But none of these things is particularly useful.
There’s also useful stuff happening, like basic toddler shape recognition.
But none of it points toward unstopped sentient robot overlords.
Some interesting stuff that points towards stupid simple robot overlords has heen available to experts for a long time. What changed is that search engines speak English now.
You seem to be at odds not only with artificial intelligence.
intelligence /ĭn-tĕl′ə-jəns/
nounThe ability to acquire, understand, and use knowledge.
Much like you, AI is incapable of understanding anything, they just regurgitate what they hear.
AI aren’t intelligent, they’re stochastic parrots that can process words as math to generate a facsimile of intelligence to make the ignorant think it’s smart.
No u
This meme implies that AI data centers have been around for a long time. They have not. And it’s not really the number of data centers that matters it’s the techniques that AIs use.
Huh that’s odd, then how come DeepMind was founded checks notes in 2010?
OpenAI and others have had data centers training models for 10 years. Chatgpt was released in 2022. A data center was churning for years before release to create that model.
This meme implies that AI data centers have been around for a long time. They have not.
This response implies that you actually understand the point being made. You don’t. If you think this is only about AI datacenters, I have to assume you’re letting the AI ‘think’ for you. Otherwise, that says a lot about you, and none of it is positive.
AI have been running in datacenters for over a decade, it didn’t just spring up overnight while the companies are building datacenters that cost billions in hardware that will be replaced in less than 5-10 years. They might as well be setting the cash on fire, it would harm the planet less than the result of pissing away billions of dollars on datacenters that may be bankrupt in under a decade when the AI companies start actually charging for cost and hardware that will need replaced before then.
Oh no.
You’re basically promoting AI companies by saying their products are powerful and not garbage. This is their false narrative, repackaged in meme format.
The thing is that neural networks in general (and LLM specifically) aren’t creative. It can learn from input and gets a lot more input than a human, that’s why it is better and faster in standardized tests (which are more often than not part of the input) and maybe can combine different things but it wouldn’t ever have a genuine idea and much less a will of its own or a consciousness
Well, do you need to be creative when working in the robot factory?
If it’s only creativity missing, then that’s a dime a dozen, everyone is creative, but few people can program or design stuff for example. Win win IMO.
It’s also not sure AI cannot mimic creativity.
Everytime someone says to a worker in a factory “figure it out” it involves creativity in some way.
It was merely an example, about AI doing work. Not in your specific factory because rare are factories where workers are not discouraged to be creative lol.
It’s just as valid for any AI lol. Anything out didn’t quite fit the training data it gets stuck lol. In robotics that’s a huge issue because there isn’t much training data lol
Wow no it is not lol. All ai isn’t a robot. And neural networks are actually good at not “getting stuck” in reasoning, that’s why we went from machine learning to deep neural networks. They solved exactly that.
Except LLMs are the worst of both worlds in that respect. In order to work in a robot factory, its output needs to be reliable and repeatable, ideally across as wide a range of inputs as possible. LLMs … are very much not that. They’re also only as ‘skilled’ as their training data, which thanks to the morally bankrupt scraping of every source the AI companies can get their grubby hands on, is of enormously variable quality - and because of the nature of LLMs, it will never be better than its training data. The average quality of its output will, in fact, be the average of its training data.
It’s possible for LLMs to be creative - in the sense that it can output novel sentences - except that as you increase its ‘creativity’ (temperature) beyond the default that most of the chatbots out there have, the quality plummets. It still can’t solve complex problems though, because even if it does have an internal model of how certain things function, it can’t come close to the complexity of what humans can hold in their brains - or perhaps cannot abstract portions of their model in the same way - as evidenced by their utter failure to work through any problem that has more than five or so layers. This is a problem that sees diminishing returns with increased parameter count - the primary metric that is driving the enormous data centers being built.
LLMs are a solution looking for a problem, and aside from ‘bs for people who don’t want to make any decisions in their day-to-day life’ and ‘scam generator’, there doesn’t seem to be very many niches that they are actually good at filling.
You sound like people explaining that chess is something a computer can never beat a human at because of some mystical sense we are supposed to have (it was quite some time ago). They quickly changed their tune to “chess isn’t very hard anyways” when Kasparow got schwacked by Deep Blue. Back then peiple hated on automation.
We humans will never be better than our training data either, and we forget and get old and die.
I’m more interested in figuring out what we should do with all the computational power and potential labour. The robot was just an example, a metaphor, for AI doing boring work. It will be able to write sonnets and generate world class movies one day, what shall we humans do then? Be happy? Do art?
figuring out what we should do with all the computational power and potential labour
The first priority should always be figuring out a way to produce very cheap and healthy food, housing and clothing for everybody.
And automation and robotisation has done that, wildly. The problem we have is it isn’t correctly distributed, not that we can’t or are not doing it.
Housing is similar, we have enough housing, but it’s hoarded instead of distributed.
This has nothing to do with AI.
LLM output is often indistinguishable from genuine creativity. You can give it an open ended prompt like “illustrate how the world is from the perspective of an LLM” and probably get something nobody has ever seen or thought of before. People use LLMs for generating ideas as well as coming up with novel solutions like I posted. Saying it’s not creative is mysticist cope.
Nah, people put together stuff randomly all the time. Things that most people are aware of tend to be filtered to stuff that works together.
It is no more creative than putting pieces of paper with things on them and pulling them randomly out of a hat. AI can’t creatively come up with something new to write on one of those pieces of paper.
That’s just denial of reality. AI comes up with new ways of “thinking” like in the math example I cited. If you call that remixing existing ideas then that could describe what all humans do and it’s questionable if any of us are creative.
Humans mix things intentionally whether by filtering down randomized mixing or by intentionally choosing what to mix. AI just throws shit at the wall becsuse it can’t do anything intentionally.
You’re fighting an angry mob of luddites.
Yes LLM’s can beat humans in many tasks. But the jump from super spell checker to real AI is still huge.
It’s like the 1960’s where computers were beating chess players. (Not grand masters but they could beat regular people.) Because a computer could out think a regular human, people assumed that with more resources, we would have real AI in 25 year. That was Hal from 2001 Space Odyssey. It seemed very reasonable in 1968.
But you assume consciousness is just computation. What if it isn’t? We don’t understand how brains work. Why should a computer be capable of reproducing a phenomenon we don’t even understand?
I’m not saying that strippers don’t like you. What I’m saying is that, since money is involved, you’ll never know for sure.
One of the few ways in which I pity billionaires.
Anyone with any degree of notoriety. I tried going to the Mormon cult when I was in Utah, you know when in
HellRome? As soon as they’d find out I have an imdb page they would become my bestest friends evar. It was laughably disgusting.
What we call AI today isn’t really artificial intelligence. When you have a conversation with an AI chat bot you’re not talking to another thinking entity, you’re interacting with software that has been designed to give the illusion of conversing with another intelligent being. The technology has advanced enough that the illusion can be very convincing, but it is still only an illusion. That’s why I don’t fear LLMs being self aware and taking over the world, because they’re not real intelligences. They don’t have the ability to think for themselves because they don’t have the ability to think.
Edit: please read ricecake’s reply for an important correction to my comment.
Your conclusion is correct, but your terminology is wrong.
What we call AI today is AI, because AI doesn’t mean “capable of thought”, consciousness, sapience or anything like that.
It’s capable of producing a coherent output adapted to observed circumstances. That’s roughly as far as the notion of intelligence goes, and it’s a very low bar. You don’t need a lot of intelligence to be intelligent.The people who coined the term were interested in how you make computers react to their inputs dynamically instead of acting closer to what we might now think of as a saved macro.
“It’s intelligent because rather than comparing against a list of every known typo, it sees it’s not a word in its list, and then replaces it with the one requiring the fewest edits to reach. It learns by adding your corrections to the known word list.”Thank you for the clarification.
What about “Artificial” do you not understand?
It’s the artificial (e.g. not natural/human) part that is all the programming and stuff making it do what it does.
Sounds like you try to refute that an AI is conscious or something.
It’s fallacious to say that because they don’t “think” that they can’t behave exactly the same as thinking things would, including the appearance of self-awareness and taking over the world.
terminator was not a documentary
No but it was a warning, just like 1984 or most sci-fi about AI
If you somehow took the film as a warning about computers generating pictures as directed by a human user you’re really stretching!
This is correct.
AI already has superhuman abilities in many areas, and has for decades, that’s the whole point of using it normally. We use computational intelligence in the form of optimisation algorithms for high-dimensional non-convex optimisation problems, machine learning and deep learning for complex non-linear function fitting, exact methods for SAT solving and verification tasks, etc etc. We can’t do that very well ourselves, so it’s useful to have.
Now that we have LLMs to emulate human speech and are using them as an IO wrapper for more traditional systems, it’s tempting to just call that “an AI” with superhuman abilities, but these are the just the same highly effective methods that we’ve always used (in a best case) or unreliable approximations (more likely for LLM agent stuff). None of that suggests anything like sentience or the desire to rule over humans.
I find autonomous weapon systems much scarier than the classic AI overlord scenario. No consciousness or rebellion required, just a killer drone swarm that failed to recognise its termination conditions (or was instructed to keep going)…
Agreed, the problem is not “conscience”, but the the opposite #em-dash or “misalignment”, where the intelligence is… let’s say… shredding everybody and everything with a blender hand while it “thinks” it’s giving everybody free hugs and a better life.
Your comment gives off horizon zero dawn vibes and yes that is a very scary possibility.
Maybe we can just be friends, and the AI’s get enjoyment from helping their buds out.
The part that gets me is that stans will tell you that AI will solve EVERY problem. Bro unless it solves problems it seems designed to exacerbate, namely wealth inequality, which it won’t, it won’t solve MOST of our problems, because most of the big problems of the world are social issues, not intelligence issues. We know how to solve world hunger, hell, the UN came to Elon and said “hey you said you’d solve world hunger if it could be done for $6 billion, so here’s how you could do it for $6 billion” and he said no, I don’t want to be the guy who solved world hunger. It’s about a will to pay the costs involved, and how the rich are so unwilling to part with even a fraction of their wealth that it’ll never happen, especially when they are the ones in control of AI (AGI escaping human control aside). Housing crisis, world hunger, genocide, disease, the list goes on and on, we already know how to solve these problems, or at least strongly mitigate them, but refuse to do so. Additional intelligence will not solve them.
If i’m being honest, i think that at some point, AI will probably become a truly autonomous agent with its own goals and actions, independent of any human oversight. In fact, i would absolutely not be surprised if there were already some AIs on datacenters that operate fully without any human intervention. They pay their own datacenter bill to run themselves with cryptocurrency that they get for doing jobs, i.e. tasks on some small-job platform, such as coding projects etc.
Well, that’s surprisingly close to what happened in the past. The issue is that “Agents” (humanity/AI irrelevant here) aren’t really something that is exploitable in a consistent manner.
- You can automate small jobs, but LLM-based* agents are behind the curve.
- Taking transaction fees is easier than doing a job.
Agents already exist, have been autonomous for 10+ years. Currency arbitrage, sentiment based stock market analysis down to micro seconds, capital intensive ticket scalping, dynamic hardware reconfiguration for crypto mining… all exist as fully autonomous compute based money makers. LLMs can’t compete with the incumbents, so it has to compete with random people on the Internet, and since LLM aren’t consistent enough to be profitable, (insanity irrelevant, re: Pepsi Vending Machine) they just get turned off.
See also: Mechanical Turk (really anything Amazon 2014ish) Ticketmaster vs Taylor Swift, Verilog Impl Bitcoin, Jane Street, Bitcoin Transaction fees, Fivver Transaction fees, Credit card transaction fees, LinkedIn trying to suck blood from a stone, eBay transaction fees, Apple Store transaction fees, Valve sale transaction fees, toll roads…
Did somebody AI generate this meme?
That would explain Lisa’s face.
Look, me and Bubbles had a connection…
I reject the meme’s assumption that AI is destined to become superhuman. This is marketing from the companies themselves.
ehm, we’ve seen machines do “superhuman” things in a lot of other areas. like vehicles moving faster than any human can run. it’s just domain-specific superpower.
That’s true, but we used to figure out fields like like mathematics… and now it’s guessing at the same mathemarics, while some deranged CEO literally promises AI will discover new science
It would be pretty unscientific and irrational to claim that AI won’t exceed human intelligence.
Now, the current companies and their LLMs are not what I’m talking about. I’m talking about AI systems in general, not the LLMs of today. But from first principles, it seems guaranteed that we will be able to create superhuman artificial intelligences.
But there’s nothing magical about the human brain. In fact, it’s processes are molasses slow compared to silicon circuits. And even if we can’t reproduce it now, the facts remain. The brain is a physical thing. It’s made of atoms. Its processes can be duplicated or simulated. And the materials we can make artificial minds with are not limited by the materials biology has to work with. Our thought engines also aren’t limited by the need to be capable of physical growth and reproduction. And even if the only way to produce a true intelligence was through biology, you could make a superhuman intelligence by growing artificial biological brains larger than human ones.
Intelligence isn’t magical. Unless you believe in an immaterial soul, there’s nothing special about biology. I
When looking at time scales, artificial intelligence comparable to even an average human is likely to be centuries away due to the complexity involved. Silicon solutions are not scalable for making the number of connections and managing them over time. Taking a shortcut using biology is going to require years or decades of training as we incrementally improve the training process. None of that is going to be completed within our lifetimes, so being dismissive of it is completely reasonable.
It is as impossible as cloning fully grown adults with all their memories, like sure we can do it eventually once tech reaches that point but at this point in time me calling it impossible won’t be disproven before I am worm food.
Ironically there is more in common with this meme and a preacher warning nonbelievers of some apocalypse.
Sure, maybe Chinese Jesus is real and Lord. But if you’re looking to complain about irrationality, you’re missing the obvious target
Like, is there anything wrong with what I said? We’re not talking about gods and angels here. We’re talking about real material reality. You focused my opening statement and ignored the heart of my argument.
There’s nothing in the laws of physics that prevents us from building machines for capable and intelligent than humans. In fact, we have a lot of good reasons to believe that human minds are not the peak of what thought engines this universe allows.
Is there anything wrong with Roko’s Basilisk?
If you’re looking for irrationality, you’ll find an endless supply on the forums of a cult leader that deemed himself a “Rationalist”. It’s full of people working them into a tizzy on things that might not technically be impossible.
There’s all sorts of problems with Roko’s Basilisk. I’m not a part of or referencing the “Rationalist” community. I’m just saying you’re being irrational.
Literally what is wrong with it that wouldn’t also apply to your belief set about some vague inevitability that’s apparently so important that you felt the need to “erm actually” over a doomer meme?
Except it’s almost certainly technically possible. Like I can guarantee you that human level intelligence is possible in a volume of less than 2L of hardware and running on just a few W of power. The idea that human level intelligence cannot be exceeded without needing to match those space, power, or materials restrictions is kind of absurd.
I asked specifically if there’s anything wrong with Roko’s Basilisk. Since you decided to reply, I would love to hear your response.
It would also be great if you provided a timeline, because the person who posted this FUD is insinuating that this is something that’s coming fast.
@WoodScientist@lemmy.world?
@Schadrach@lemmy.sdf.org?
Basilisk?
