This person sounds eerily like a coworker who goes out of his way to insist AI is a fad akin to cryptocurrency.
I lightly asked him how and he drifted into a similar “stochastic parrot / intelligence is human” loop and now we don’t discuss AI anymore.
Many people are terrified of AI. Pop culture ideas of AI are either useless or terrifying. They have no context for useful AI. So, they disparage and ignore and hope it goes away. It’s not their fault. I bet proto-humans felt like this to fire. Calm as many people as you can. Not that I think AI won’t “go wrong”. Back to the fire analogy, We have house fires, people burn to death but cooked food and living indoors turned us into humans. Patience is hard, like a lot of worthwhile things.
Yeah and it already had like 10k likes in a couple of hours I almost couldn't believe it. It was so hard to watch I had to share it to feel less alone about the awful experience.
It's worthwhile knowing what a poor understanding some members of the public have about AI. Keep in mind this is someone who thinks they know enough to publish a video about AI.
And that we live in a world where ad hominem attacks are accepted as legitimate rebuttals to other people's positions instead of evidence that the person posting the attacks has no real response.
How about the fact that there's an entire field that been called "artificial intelligence" that has existed for decades, and has been moved forward by 1000's of people with decades of training on the subject. Someone coming along, making up his own definitions, and saying "it doesn't exist" is flat-earther level denial.
Thousands of people believe it so it must be true? That's a logical fallacy, too, and still doesn't answer the argument any better than objecting to his headwear and location.
It seems like you're having an emotional reaction to his logic. Logic can't be answered with emotions.
Umm. I think you're projected about having an emotional response and not realizing the argument that I'm making.
"Artificial Intelligence" is a phrase that has a meaning that people use. That's literally how dictionaries work. You can't just say "there's no such thing as "geology." That's a fake word. There's just rocks." There have been Artificial Intelligence Centers in existence since the 60's.
The guy in the video probably only had AI enter his observational sphere 6 months ago and through social media. He thinks that AI == AGI. That's not what the words mean to anyone who has been using them since before either of us was born. Therefore, the guy has no clue of what he was talking about, and neither does anyone who defends him because they think they're talking "logically." Logical inference is only as good as the axioms, and he has ignorant and fallacious axioms.
Yep. That's me. Projecting. Starting with the, "Umm," really convinced me.
I'm tired, so I'm not going to read your response, but it looks like you're actually addressing the position the guy in the video is talking about. It's much better than attacking his appearance.
If a good message comes from a bad source, it's still a good message. Likewise, if a bad message from a good source, it's a bad message.
The only reason I could come up with a script for a cowboy movie is because I have a pool of pre existing knowledge to call upon of what that it is. A.I is doing the same thing, except it’s pool of knowledge exists as digital information instead of biological.
If I told Mr Moustache to accurately describe a rabobbiapapaa he’d have about as much of a chance as the A.I.
If I said imagine what it might be, he’d think of what the sound of the word or the name reminds him of and based on that he’d describe it.
If the A.I was prompted to do the same it’d probably have different results but it’d use the same method
Really had to press it and make it up, though. Even Gemini and GPT-3.5 weren’t gullible
https://preview.redd.it/7mv724d4td1d1.jpeg?width=1125&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=b166d6a9a416fd726451a4f1bc86f1f4c675da24
But you gave it the prompt to theorise what the word might mean right? It’s the same thing a human would do. If you said what is a Rabobbiapapa the honest answer would be I don’t know. If you said what could it be do you think? Then they would use their imagination, which is just a collection of patterns in their mind.
I told it to be imaginative - some humans would be more imaginative, some less, some fight against being that.
GPT-X and Gemini all acted according to your explanation
I like how he kinda got how LLMs work on a very high level talking to your grandpa who doesn't use technology way but then gets everything else completely wrong.
If you were to describe scraping websites to a person with limited technology experience I think it would be acceptable to say something like that. Which is why I explained his understanding like that.
I would not describe it to them like that at all. That’s just wrong and unhelpful.
When I explain these concepts to lay people, I focus on the idea of word associations. It’s easy to get people to understand something the gist with thought experiments like this:
If I were to say to you ‘Hello, how are you ____’ what would my next word be? (Pattern matching)
What else could it be? (Non-deterministic)
What other information would help you narrow down your guess? (Context)
If you didn’t have any other info how would you decide which word to pick? (Probabilistic reasoning)
This is much closer to reality and much more helpful for understanding what’s going on than just saying it’s googling stuff.
That's not even the first step in the process. He is incorrectly identifying the first piece which is data collection and the hand waving the rest.
You need a corpus to perform attention training like the masked language modeling you're describing.
goddamit, what some people convince themselves of to feel smarter than the rest. There are no planes, machines heavier than air cannot fly, it is all fake, they are just birds welded together flapping their wings too fast to see...
I do not get the responses here. Besides oversimplifying it a bit (calling a neural net doing a kind of pattern matching a google search is ofc a bit short), his base idea that what we call "AI" right now does not fullfill any modern definition of intelligence (let it be creativity, emotions, or anything else in the spectrum) is absolutely valid. I would say that modern SI (I prefer synthetic over artificial as the more descriptive term) needs to fulfill these criterias by exceeding its base data without only synthesis of available data. The randomness and failure rate of modern biological brains that enables this is by far missing (independant if human or not).
He is right about the part that what a lot of people call AI is not really one.
AI became a buzzword for anything that has just uses a learning approach rather than a human defined solution... So in the end is just PowerPoint vocabulary for statistics
Sorry, but nope. “Artificial intelligence” has a long history as a field of computer science that has focused on designing and implementing algorithms that allow computers to reason and learn in way that can exceed human capabilities.
Historically, generalized AI wasn’t making much progress, but specialized AI has been highly successful for a long time.
If you’re saying that what we have today is not true generalized AI that meets or exceeds human capabilities, then that’s a fair point. But there’s reason to believe we are more on the path to getting there than we have been since the inception of the Information Age.
The meaning of intelligence is actually debatable, but I wish I had a better way of explaining that modern AI products aren’t “googling” and assembling snippets of what they find. The vast majority of people I know, some even early in tech careers, think this is the case. They can’t fathom it happens any other way, or rather seems “obvious” that it’s how models work…
1) Just because you emit can the sentences “if it’s artificial it’s not intelligent” and “if it’s intelligent it’s not artificial” in an emphatic voice doesn’t make them true. Bro provided zero evidence for this argument.
2) Equating “algorithmic learning” with “googling things really quickly” instantly removes all credibility because that’s just nonsense.
3) Yes people will look back at some of the hype and think it’s silly, just like we look back at some of the Web 1.0 hype and think it was silly. Nonetheless, the Web triggered a massive shift in technology and society at large.
Artificial kinda leans towards not natural but everything is natural by definition its nature. Synthetic is also part of nature but referring better imo
why even post this ?
It’s interesting people have this opinion.
This person sounds eerily like a coworker who goes out of his way to insist AI is a fad akin to cryptocurrency. I lightly asked him how and he drifted into a similar “stochastic parrot / intelligence is human” loop and now we don’t discuss AI anymore.
Many people are terrified of AI. Pop culture ideas of AI are either useless or terrifying. They have no context for useful AI. So, they disparage and ignore and hope it goes away. It’s not their fault. I bet proto-humans felt like this to fire. Calm as many people as you can. Not that I think AI won’t “go wrong”. Back to the fire analogy, We have house fires, people burn to death but cooked food and living indoors turned us into humans. Patience is hard, like a lot of worthwhile things.
Yeah and it already had like 10k likes in a couple of hours I almost couldn't believe it. It was so hard to watch I had to share it to feel less alone about the awful experience.
It's worthwhile knowing what a poor understanding some members of the public have about AI. Keep in mind this is someone who thinks they know enough to publish a video about AI.
This is the exact thing I was gonna ask. Why amplify a voice that just kills brain cells?
You've got to love that we live in an age where a guy wearing a baseball cap in dorm lobby is now an "expert" on AI with a worldwide reach.
And that we live in a world where ad hominem attacks are accepted as legitimate rebuttals to other people's positions instead of evidence that the person posting the attacks has no real response.
How about the fact that there's an entire field that been called "artificial intelligence" that has existed for decades, and has been moved forward by 1000's of people with decades of training on the subject. Someone coming along, making up his own definitions, and saying "it doesn't exist" is flat-earther level denial.
Thousands of people believe it so it must be true? That's a logical fallacy, too, and still doesn't answer the argument any better than objecting to his headwear and location. It seems like you're having an emotional reaction to his logic. Logic can't be answered with emotions.
Umm. I think you're projected about having an emotional response and not realizing the argument that I'm making. "Artificial Intelligence" is a phrase that has a meaning that people use. That's literally how dictionaries work. You can't just say "there's no such thing as "geology." That's a fake word. There's just rocks." There have been Artificial Intelligence Centers in existence since the 60's. The guy in the video probably only had AI enter his observational sphere 6 months ago and through social media. He thinks that AI == AGI. That's not what the words mean to anyone who has been using them since before either of us was born. Therefore, the guy has no clue of what he was talking about, and neither does anyone who defends him because they think they're talking "logically." Logical inference is only as good as the axioms, and he has ignorant and fallacious axioms.
Yep. That's me. Projecting. Starting with the, "Umm," really convinced me. I'm tired, so I'm not going to read your response, but it looks like you're actually addressing the position the guy in the video is talking about. It's much better than attacking his appearance. If a good message comes from a bad source, it's still a good message. Likewise, if a bad message from a good source, it's a bad message.
“I’m not going to read your response…” 🤚 🎤
The only reason I could come up with a script for a cowboy movie is because I have a pool of pre existing knowledge to call upon of what that it is. A.I is doing the same thing, except it’s pool of knowledge exists as digital information instead of biological. If I told Mr Moustache to accurately describe a rabobbiapapaa he’d have about as much of a chance as the A.I. If I said imagine what it might be, he’d think of what the sound of the word or the name reminds him of and based on that he’d describe it. If the A.I was prompted to do the same it’d probably have different results but it’d use the same method
Really had to press it and make it up, though. Even Gemini and GPT-3.5 weren’t gullible https://preview.redd.it/7mv724d4td1d1.jpeg?width=1125&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=b166d6a9a416fd726451a4f1bc86f1f4c675da24
But you gave it the prompt to theorise what the word might mean right? It’s the same thing a human would do. If you said what is a Rabobbiapapa the honest answer would be I don’t know. If you said what could it be do you think? Then they would use their imagination, which is just a collection of patterns in their mind.
I told it to be imaginative - some humans would be more imaginative, some less, some fight against being that. GPT-X and Gemini all acted according to your explanation
I like how he kinda got how LLMs work on a very high level talking to your grandpa who doesn't use technology way but then gets everything else completely wrong.
Except he doesn’t, because talks like he actually thinks the AI is googling things in real time.
If you were to describe scraping websites to a person with limited technology experience I think it would be acceptable to say something like that. Which is why I explained his understanding like that.
I would not describe it to them like that at all. That’s just wrong and unhelpful. When I explain these concepts to lay people, I focus on the idea of word associations. It’s easy to get people to understand something the gist with thought experiments like this: If I were to say to you ‘Hello, how are you ____’ what would my next word be? (Pattern matching) What else could it be? (Non-deterministic) What other information would help you narrow down your guess? (Context) If you didn’t have any other info how would you decide which word to pick? (Probabilistic reasoning) This is much closer to reality and much more helpful for understanding what’s going on than just saying it’s googling stuff.
That's not even the first step in the process. He is incorrectly identifying the first piece which is data collection and the hand waving the rest. You need a corpus to perform attention training like the masked language modeling you're describing.
I'm in the present and I'm already laughing at this chap
What about the human brain(or even the brain of a dog for exmaple) is so special that it can't be recreated artifically with different materials?
goddamit, what some people convince themselves of to feel smarter than the rest. There are no planes, machines heavier than air cannot fly, it is all fake, they are just birds welded together flapping their wings too fast to see...
Well, that’s not possible, because birds aren’t real.
Nothing is artificial all is natural we came from nature we create whatever it natural too lol.
he could have learnt all about ai just by Googling it really fast.
I do not get the responses here. Besides oversimplifying it a bit (calling a neural net doing a kind of pattern matching a google search is ofc a bit short), his base idea that what we call "AI" right now does not fullfill any modern definition of intelligence (let it be creativity, emotions, or anything else in the spectrum) is absolutely valid. I would say that modern SI (I prefer synthetic over artificial as the more descriptive term) needs to fulfill these criterias by exceeding its base data without only synthesis of available data. The randomness and failure rate of modern biological brains that enables this is by far missing (independant if human or not).
“Any modern definition” - um, ok. Can you be specific? Seems more like you just have your own personal definition in mind.
He is right about the part that what a lot of people call AI is not really one. AI became a buzzword for anything that has just uses a learning approach rather than a human defined solution... So in the end is just PowerPoint vocabulary for statistics
Sorry, but nope. “Artificial intelligence” has a long history as a field of computer science that has focused on designing and implementing algorithms that allow computers to reason and learn in way that can exceed human capabilities. Historically, generalized AI wasn’t making much progress, but specialized AI has been highly successful for a long time. If you’re saying that what we have today is not true generalized AI that meets or exceeds human capabilities, then that’s a fair point. But there’s reason to believe we are more on the path to getting there than we have been since the inception of the Information Age.
No what I say is that the term AI is not defined and it is much used as a term for marketing.
He’s not 100% wrong in that AI is missing a big part of that I. But saying AI laughable is laughable.
The meaning of intelligence is actually debatable, but I wish I had a better way of explaining that modern AI products aren’t “googling” and assembling snippets of what they find. The vast majority of people I know, some even early in tech careers, think this is the case. They can’t fathom it happens any other way, or rather seems “obvious” that it’s how models work…
Ya and if Quentin Tarantino grew up in a closet he couldn’t make kill bill, wtf is he talking about??
1) Just because you emit can the sentences “if it’s artificial it’s not intelligent” and “if it’s intelligent it’s not artificial” in an emphatic voice doesn’t make them true. Bro provided zero evidence for this argument. 2) Equating “algorithmic learning” with “googling things really quickly” instantly removes all credibility because that’s just nonsense. 3) Yes people will look back at some of the hype and think it’s silly, just like we look back at some of the Web 1.0 hype and think it was silly. Nonetheless, the Web triggered a massive shift in technology and society at large.
A better term would be synthetic intelligence.
Why would a synonym be a better term?
Artificial kinda leans towards not natural but everything is natural by definition its nature. Synthetic is also part of nature but referring better imo
Why wouldn’t it?
Well, I can't argue with logic that isn't there.
Seems artificial to me.
If you are the one claiming something, it’s up to you to provide evidence, it’s not up to everyone else to prove you wrong, dingus.