ChatGPT has meltdown and starts sending alarming messages to users::AI system has started speaking nonsense, talking Spanglish without prompting, and worrying users by suggesting it is in the room with them

  • @Coreidan@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    -3
    edit-2
    10 months ago

    Exactly. They are just “models”. There is nothing intelligent about them.

    Yes octopus are very intelligent. They can think themselves out of a box without relying on curated data to train them.

    Logic, reasoning, and deduction. LLMs have zero ability to reject data based on their understanding of reality. Big diff.

    • @platypus_plumba@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      5
      edit-2
      10 months ago

      You keep asking questions like “can a model build a house” but keep ignoring questions like “can an octopus build a house”. Then asking “can a model learn in seconds how to escape from a complex enclosure” and then ignoring “can a newborn human baby do that?”

      Can an octopus write a poem? Can a baby write an essay? Can an adult human speak every human language, including fictional languages?

      Just because it isn’t as intelligent as a human doesn’t mean this isn’t some type if intelligence.

      Go and check what we call AI in videogames. Do you think that’s a simulated human? Go see what we’ve been calling AI in chess. Is that a simulated human being playing chess? No.

      We’ve been calling Artificial intelligence things that are waaaaaay dumber than GPTs for decades. Even in the academia. Suddenly a group of people decided “artificial intelligence must be equal to human intelligence”. Nope.

      Intelligence doesn’t need to be the same type of human intelligence.

    • @QuaternionsRock@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      210 months ago

      LLMs have zero ability to reject data based on their understanding of reality.

      Me:

      I just found a proof that 2+2=5!

      ChatGPT:

      The statement “2 + 2 = 5” is a classic example of a mathematical fallacy or incorrect reasoning, often used for humorous or illustrative purposes. In standard arithmetic, of course, 2 + 2 = 4. Proofs claiming to show otherwise rely on some form of invalid manipulation of algebraic properties or deliberate arithmetic mistakes.

      A common “proof” of 2 + 2 = 5 might go something like this:

      1. Start with an incorrect assumption or manipulate the algebraic steps in a way that hides a division by zero or another illegal operation.
      2. Through these manipulations, arrive at the conclusion that 2 + 2 = 5.

      However, each step of a valid mathematical proof must adhere strictly to the rules and properties of mathematics. Any proof leading to 2 + 2 = 5 will contain an error or a misapplication of those rules.

      If you have a specific “proof” in mind, I can help identify the error in it.