I don’t think one can object to any technology iteself, it is the implementation and details where things get problematic.
So I have objections to both the implementation of LLMs and the marketing spin of making claims that AI (as a lay person thinks about it) exists by calling it such.
I would love to have the star trek computer; impassionate answers to question asked by natural language. That part is kind of great.
But not at the expense of the environment, job insecurity, loss cognitive abilities, electricity consumption, harvesting everyones data for private gain.
We just aren’t ready to handle those challenges yet.
AI (as sold to us) is currently under the assumption that eventually, with enough resources thrown at the problem, become stable and useful. But there is no guarantee that will be true, and they are still missing the models of how reasoning should work.
What is your definition of intelligence?
Just remember, its irrelavant to this discussion, because the point I am making is that what we have today is not about intelligence in the first place, its about marketing, engagement, and making money.
But in terms of what AI we have today? Intelligence has a foundation based on knowledge, where a lot of social cues, second guesses, self regulation, intuition, and other applied behaviours. LLM’s start down a track and continue it to a conclusion. They may review their writing, add more inputs, but they again just go down the same probabalistic course.
Intelligence is knowing your limits, having tacit knowledge (judgement based on experience), generate novel concepts (AI as we have it today is likely to collapse knowledge, not contribute to it), ability to apply rationale from other fields and sources while creating conclusions, and sensory input that is not just wieghted models.
You seem reasonable and even-tempered, so I’d like to give you a considered response so I can hear your thoughts. But first I wanna ask:
Do you object to the technology as a whole, or only to the use of the moniker AI to described LLMs?
What is your definition of intelligence?
I don’t think one can object to any technology iteself, it is the implementation and details where things get problematic.
So I have objections to both the implementation of LLMs and the marketing spin of making claims that AI (as a lay person thinks about it) exists by calling it such.
I would love to have the star trek computer; impassionate answers to question asked by natural language. That part is kind of great.
But not at the expense of the environment, job insecurity, loss cognitive abilities, electricity consumption, harvesting everyones data for private gain.
We just aren’t ready to handle those challenges yet.
AI (as sold to us) is currently under the assumption that eventually, with enough resources thrown at the problem, become stable and useful. But there is no guarantee that will be true, and they are still missing the models of how reasoning should work.
Just remember, its irrelavant to this discussion, because the point I am making is that what we have today is not about intelligence in the first place, its about marketing, engagement, and making money.
But in terms of what AI we have today? Intelligence has a foundation based on knowledge, where a lot of social cues, second guesses, self regulation, intuition, and other applied behaviours. LLM’s start down a track and continue it to a conclusion. They may review their writing, add more inputs, but they again just go down the same probabalistic course.
Intelligence is knowing your limits, having tacit knowledge (judgement based on experience), generate novel concepts (AI as we have it today is likely to collapse knowledge, not contribute to it), ability to apply rationale from other fields and sources while creating conclusions, and sensory input that is not just wieghted models.
What is your definition?