• flatbield
    link
    fedilink
    English
    5
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Understanding the general sanity of some of their responses. Synthesizing new ideas. Having a larger context. AI tends to be idiot savants on one hand and really mediocre on the other.

    You could argue that this is just a reflection of lack of training and scale but I wonder.

    You will change my mind when I have had a machine interaction where the machine does not seem like an idiot.

    Edit: AI people call the worst of these hallucinations but they are just nonsensical stuff that proves AI knows nothing and are just dumb correlation engines.

    • @intensely_human@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      21 year ago

      Have you ever interacted with a human that seemed like an idiot? Do you think that person is incapable of understanding?

      • flatbield
        link
        fedilink
        English
        11 year ago

        Most humans are not very intelligent either and many lack the ability to understand many things. We are not really thinking machines. We are emotional creatures that some times think. So I would not measure AI against the average human. That is a pretty low bar.

    • @0ops@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      2
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      AI knows nothing and are just dumb correlation engines

      Here’s a thought exercise, how do you “know”? How do you know your pet? LLMs like gpt can “know” about a dog in terms of words, because that’s what they “sense”, that’s how they interact with their “environment”. They understand words and how they relate to other words, basically words are their entire environment.

      Now, can you describe how you know your dog without your senses, or anything derived from your senses? Remember, chemical receptors are “senses” too.

      I remember reading about this awhile back but I don’t have the link on me: Did you know that people who were born blind but have their vision repaired years later don’t immediately know what “pointy” looks like? They never formed that correlation between the feeling of pointy and the visual of pointy the way that they could with the feeling and the word.

      My point is, we’re correlation machines too