General > General Technical Chat
Sentient AI or?
ataradov:
The whole story is a complete and utter nonsense. A few responses taken out of context do not make a good AI, much less sentient entity. Show me the thing maintaining an hour long conversation without looking like a complete idiot and we have something to talk about. It is still not going to be anything sentient, but it would be a fun toy. But we are so far away from this that there is not even the point in discussing that.
Just like GPT3 is not going to kill writers and DALL-E 2 is not going to kill artists, this is going to be forgotten in the next news cycle.
radar_macgyver:
Given how high this story has trended, I wonder if this is just a really good SEO/marketing campaign for Google's NL engine. All they needed to do was find one fall guy/"institutionalized ayahuasca sipper" (thanks bd139, I'm going to use that one!)
ataradov:
--- Quote from: radar_macgyver on June 14, 2022, 05:22:39 am ---Given how high this story has trended, I wonder if this is just a really good SEO/marketing
--- End quote ---
I think the "tech" news amount is low now. So, all you have is Apple with their reality distortion field and this. And, yes Elon with his non stop whining.
There is no real point in promoting something not available to general public. And I'm sure they can provide an impressive private demo to interested parties.
pcprogrammer:
What is intelligence in artificial intelligence.
Take a look at this video and see what might look intelligent can be nothing else then just matching pre fed information to a given question, without knowing anything about it.
ataradov:
I think there are two different things here. One is the philosophical, and can lead to an endless and pointless discussion like all philosophy does. I've even seen some suggestions that we need to start thinking about giving some sort of personhood and rights to the AI. This is obviously stupid, and only works for people that like to waste time doing nothing.
The second part is more practical. The question is whether we can even make something capable of sounding like an actual human being in most situations. Just maintaining a coherent conversation is enough. Because then we can interrogate that AI at length. This is where all the current AI falls apart really fast. And the test is simple. Take one of those "200 deep questions to discuss on a first date" lists and start going over them. Those lists actually do contain a lot of decent conversation starters.
And the key point here is ability to maintain context of the discussion, not just answer separate unrelated questions, however deep they may be. Some of the things that this miracle AI produces were just straight up google completion results, no need for any intelligence there.
There is also a question of how much computer intelligence should be similar to human intelligence. And I think the goal here is to emulate human intelligence, otherwise we can start calling any random behaviour "intelligence".
And the Mary's room is in a slightly simpler form is constantly experienced by real humans. Just like in the Good Will Hunting - "I bet you can't tell me what it smells like in the Sistine Chapel.". We constantly deal with things that we only know from description. I don't even see the point of this experiment. For example, I recently tried kimchi for the first time in my life, yet I've read the description of the preparation method and I knew what to expect. It was basically exactly what I expected. I guess never seeing the color (or not having any experience with other fermented dishes) is slightly different, but I'm not sure it is a significant difference.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version