- cross-posted to:
- fuck_ai@lemmy.world
- cross-posted to:
- fuck_ai@lemmy.world
You must log in or register to comment.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10676-024-09775-5
Link to the article if anyone wants it
That’s actually a fun read
Well, yeah. People are acting like language models are full fledged AI instead of just a parrot repeating stuff said online.
Whenever any advance is made in AI, AI critics redefine AI so its not achieved yet according to their definition. Deep Blue Chess was an AI, an artificial intelligence. If you mean human or beyond level general intelligence, you’re probably talking about AGI or ASI (general or super intelligence, respectively).
And the second comment about LLMs being parrots arises from a misunderstanding of how LLMs work. The early chatbots were actual parrots, saying prewritten sentences that they had either been preprogrammed with or got from their users. LLMs work differently, statistically predicting the next token (roughly equivalent to a word) based on all those that came before it, and parameters finetuned during training. Their temperature can be changed to give more or less predictable output, and as such, they have the potential for actually original output, unlike their parrot predecessors.
LLMs work differently, statistically predicting the next token (roughly equivalent to a word) based on all those that came before it, and parameters finetuned during training.
Which is what a parrot does.
I appreciate you taking the time to clarify thank you!
Whenever any advance is made in AI, AI critics redefine AI so its not achieved yet according to their definition.
That stems from the fact that AI is an ill-defined term that has no actual meaning. Before Google maps became popular, any route finding algorithm utilizing A* was considered “AI”.
And the second comment about LLMs being parrots arises from a misunderstanding of how LLMs work.
Bullshit. These people know exactly how LLMs work.
LLMs reproduce the form of language without any meaning being transmitted. That’s called parroting.
It’s not that it has no meaning, it’s that the meaning has become overloaded.
That’s why the term “Artificial General Intelligence” came into use to denote an artificial intelligence that surpasses human capabilities across a wide range of tasks. A* is ultimately narrow AI.
You completely missed the point. The point is people have been lead to believe LLM can do jobs that humans do because the output of LLMs sounds like the jobs people do, when in reality, speech is just one small part of these jobs. It turns, reasoning is a big part of these jobs, and LLMs simply don’t reason.
When I say it they call me crass
clearly they have never heard of harry g frankfurts (excellent) „on bullshit“
Actually, they reference him.
The paper explicitly states that they are calling AI “bullshit” in the Frankfurtian sense and not merely the colloquial sense.
You’d know this if you had read the paper or even checked whether your statement were true. But you didn’t actually care about the truth value of your own statement, which means your comment is, itself, bullshit.
Sheesh, leave some for the rest of us to pick on, you savage!
This paper should cite On Bullshit.
It does. It’s even cited in the abstract, and it’s the origin of bullshit as referenced in their title.
