>but use them to improve (e.g. you ask ChatGPT to improve your essay and you learn how to write better).

# Such thought I used in argument with one of them, but he tried to counter it like that: "Do you really think students shall use such systems, even if they are be "education type" to improve themselves? I highly doubtful that's shall be the case."

> who would hate cheap affordable housing

what is this conspiracy

Context.

Hard physical problems happen in a very controlled context, that context is often a “fiction” of reality deemed close enough but simple enough to be useful.

Even all “common” mathematics had to be declared to happen inside a red taped safe space named ZFC, otherwise the unrelenting waves of complexity outside of it would have torn down everything we could be trying to build.

Everything is about context.

“Perception”, “real life” happens in a much more complicated context. That context is not sandboxed and contains all the all little sandboxes we built to make our thinking work.

To model those simple concepts , you practically need to have a internalized model of the whole world…

I don't think upgraded humans would be humans anymore.

Imagine I gave you an electronic super-cortex which knew a lot more, gave you better control of your behaviour, emotions and impulse control. Would you still be human or just a flesh robot?

> the knowledge requirements needed to tell the tool what tables do and what each of their columns mean requires a level of documentation that most companies don’t have reliably

See the potential. This is where this tool it's now. Where is it gonna be in a year? .)

1. Although neural networks (the human brain too) tend to “hallucinate” and to make things up (your own memory isn’t 100% reliable either) that’s why we help our memory with pictures, taking notes, journals, record numbers and so on (not just because we forget, but also because we might not remember correctly). If you want to retrieve accurate info from a nn, then you have it to understand your question and come up with the probable answer, then find the source on the net or in a database, then, if found, a quote function returns the exact quote/info. However, trust-wise, there is the alignment problem, but that’s another story.

2. Yeah, that sounds like “we don’t need the wheel, because we did fine without it in the past 300,000 years”.

3. “Would only”, “would never”… is reasoning in absolutist terms, witch ends up in faulty predictions such as “heavier than air machines would never fly”. For now, with the current models, you still have to to review the results: the generated answer or may contain inaccurate or made up info, the generated code may have bugs or not work at all, the generated image comes with weird stuff that you notice when you zoom in or the hands look funny, and so on. But it’s pretty likely that eventually we will have reliable models that understand the context better, that know how a hand is supposed to be and how it works, that return accurate sourced info, that code like the best professional. Our brain is the example that’s doable, unless you believe (based on no evidence) it’s because of something magical.

4. You can hardly be 100% be sure of anything, if you ask to a philosopher, and there may be some issue, but there are also peer reviewed papers.

5. Or maybe the opposite happens and there would be fewer wrong diagnoses. In the medical field there is already who uses machine learning. Still, students shouldn’t delegate their learning, reasoning and writing to language models and other models (not yet at least, I’m not sure how I would feel when an ASI will be around), but use them to improve (e.g. you ask ChatGPT to improve your essay and you learn how to write better).

We need to upgrade, improve, enhance, augment humans. Transhumanism ftw!

The solution is to to upgrade humans along improving AIs. That's the best way forward.

>I don't see why you're taking an extreme stance like that. Nobody said there wasn't any concern

Well when you say things like this:

>You're making a lot of false assumptions. AGI or ASI won't do anything on its own unless we give it the ability to, because it will have no inherent desires outside of the ones it has been programmed with.

You are already dismissing one of the largest concerns many alignment researchers have. I appreciate that the movie version of an AI run amok is distasteful, and maybe not even the likeliest way that a powerful AI can be an existential threat, but it's just confusing how you can tell people that they are making a lot of assumptions about the future of AI, and then so readily say that a future unknown model will never have any agency, which is a huge concern that people are spending a lot of time trying to understand.

Demis Hassabis, for example, regularly talks about it. He thinks he would be a large concern if we made a model with agency, and thinks it is possible, but wants us to be really careful and avoid doing so. He's not the only one, there are many researchers who are worried about accidentally giving models agency.

Why are you so confident that we will never do so? How are you so confident?

This was discussed over on r/datascience too. We’d love it if it worked out of the box, but the knowledge requirements needed to tell the tool what tables do and what each of their columns mean requires a level of documentation that most companies don’t have reliably, nor would it be standardized enough to allow a model such as GPT to generalize. In a perfect world, metadata is available, and data governance is a significant focus. Often, companies don’t have time to focus on these tasks as they require considerable work. Additionally, even though there are a lot of efforts to standardize, sometimes the underlying concepts need a lot of human intervention prior to being pushed into models.

With this in mind, the title should read, “GPT tool that lets you connect to unrealistically well documented databases, and ask questions in text.”

This May be a factor in convincing a company’s CTO that they need to let us focus on documentation, but right now, governance and metadata are far from priorities for analytics teams.

I think it's Goldman Sachs (I can't recall which mega bank, they are all the same evil blob) has been working on a fine tuned legal aid for internal legal issues and will soon be releasing 90% of their lawyers.

It's not that bad, the AI only knows the structure of your data and not the data itself.

Honestly, the sheer amount of AI news, papers and tools that have appeared in the last 2-3 years or so, makes me feel like in one aspect, the Singularity is happening for me already, because while having constant brain fog, I cannot possibly comprehend, understand and remember all this stuff, it's already beyond me. Concentrating on anything is so hard and tiring and the amount of AI related stuff makes me feel nauseous and my head hurts because of it. Literally. Like, without human augmentation, I don't know how can we possibly manage all of it. Is life becoming easier or just different? I feel like it's complicated and difficult.

Well the GPT3 playground was already available but it didn't take over the internet like ChatGPT.

Customer support for sure. It's already automated in a lot of places, often with very basic chatbots. I just hope it also makes it better for tech savvy people. I really hate dealing with customer support if they go trough all the basic steps first. "Yes I've turned if off and on already 100 times before I called you.'

Ofc it will happen, humans are weak. Artificial intelligence will surpas us in everything. Mere language model like chatgpt is way better than average student, it just lack reasoning. And what you going to to? Throw bricks? Our only way is to merge with machine, dont fight it.

[deleted]

I second You.com. I’ve been using it for years. It’s the only search engine that’s shown me results that google couldn’t find

Perplexity, lexii, dreamily, character all ending with ai. I used word tune in Google doc but it is not that good any more. Quillbot is much better. Also Google translate and deepl.com. I stopped using ChatGPT because it is too slow and it doesn't list references like perplexity and lexii.

Starting with language is a great way to SIMULATE intelligence or understanding by grabbing stuff from a bag of similar text that's been uttered by humans in the past.

The result will easily make people think we're ahead of where we really are.

>You should try it. It is 275 B parameters (numbers) which drive how ChatGPT responds.

You don't get the difference between parameters and lines of code.

>What about their point do you find silly?

Which part of their point is NOT silly? You just said it right there! In spite of all the doom we already predict, there's this idea that we would just give up control to AI anyway because it supposedly CAN make better decisions. How does it get more silly than that?

> In a digital system, we can be selective about what functions we include and exclude. And if it's going to be of use to us, it will be designed to interact with us, understand us, and socialize with us. And it doesn't need to care about rules and laws, just obey them. Computers themselves are rule-based machines, and this won't change with AGI. We're just adding cognitive functions on top to imbue it with the ability to understand things the way we do, and use that to aid us in our objectives. There's no reason it would develop it's own objectives unless designed that way.

I believe it is much more likely we will produce a black box which is an AGI, that we then employ to do specific jobs, rather than being able to turn an AGI into a classic rule-based computer. It's likely the AGI we use to control our factory knows all about Abraham Lincoln, because it will have that background from learning to use language to communicate with us, and knowing about public holidays and all the other things we take for granted with humans. It will be able to learn and change over time, which is the point of an AGI. There will be an element of unpredictability, just like humans.

>Can't wait for this to happen

It's good when people admit to having a stake in the game instead of just predicting rational outcomes.

Maybe Google can get an idea from you, they have zero customer support, even for app developers on Android. Got your account blocked? - good luck getting any person to help you. People are legitimately terrified of this scenario to the point of giving up on Gmail. Losing all online identities in one go is not fun.