Recent comments in /f/singularity

CypherLH t1_j8vdxku wrote

Reply to comment by Czl2 in Emerging Behaviour by SirDidymus

I'll grant there is a gap there..... but it actually makes the whole thing _weaker_ than I was granting...cause I don't give a shit about whether an AI system is "conscious" or "understanding" or a "mind", those are BS meaningless mystical terms. What I care about is the practical demonstration of intelligence; what measurable intelligence does a system exhibit. I'll let priests and philosophers debate about whether its "really a mind" and how many angels can dance on the head of a pin while I use the AI to do fun or useful stuff.

1

Fabulous_Exam_1787 t1_j8vbojv wrote

It basically comes down to it’s something we vaguely know that we have, but don’t have a concrete definition for. We just kind of know it is something complex. Your toaster probably doesn’t have it. Your dog might. An LLM is still not complex enough, it doesn’t have memory, etc, therefore we assume it’s not sentient.

Something like that lmao

1

FpRhGf t1_j8v9gfh wrote

Do you mean 5+ seconds to finish the entire text? Because ChatGPT's generation was always instant and fast for me until they had constant server overload from the traffic. The time it took to generate entire paragraphs was faster than any TTS reading it in 2x speed.

The slow response nowadays is just an issue stemming from too many people using it at the same time and prioritising the paid version over the free one. ChatGPT was already good in its response time during the first few weeks. But I've yet to hear a TTS that can generate audio right off the bat without waiting for a few seconds.

2

Czl2 t1_j8v60kl wrote

Reply to comment by CypherLH in Emerging Behaviour by SirDidymus

Visit Wikipedia or Britannica encyclopedia and compare what I told you against your understanding. I expect you will discover your understanding does not match what is generally accepted. Do you think these encyclopedias are both wrong?

Here is the gap in bold:

> As I pointed out before, if you accept its premise then you must accept that NOTHING is 'actually intelligent' unless you invoke something like the "vitalism" you referenced and claim humans have special magic that makes them...

The argument does not pertain to intelligence. To quote my last comment:

>> The argument says no matter how intelligent it seems a digital computer executing a program cannot have a "mind", "understanding", or "consciousness".

Do you see the gap? Your concept is "actually intelligent". The accepted concepts are: "mind", "understanding", or "consciousness" regardless of intelligence. A big difference, is it not?

1

blueSGL t1_j8us8wx wrote

You have to wonder, how would it be monitized? how much would you be willing to pay a month for a full fledged digital assistant that was not shit and did not push products and services on to you.

You can bet employees at (at least) 3 companies where choosing the right price point and time to release is keeping them up at night.

They know that Cortana or Siri or (whatever google calls theirs) will be out at some point soon.

2

blueSGL t1_j8urq1q wrote

> I haven't tried Bing yet but with ChatGPT it's always 5+ seconds. > > > > For a "realistic" conversation with an AI to be immersive, you need realistic response time.

"just a second..."

"keyboard clacking.... mouse clicks.... another mouse click.... more keyboard noises"

"Sorry about all this the system is being slow today, can I put you on hold"

5 seconds is faster than some agents I've dealt with (not their fault, computer systems can be absolute shit at times)

2

blueSGL t1_j8urdhs wrote

> I strongly believe that legislation must step in and protect the workforce for now, letting them use AI as a tool for the employee, but not to entirely replace a position. I'm all for progress, but this will again make the rich richer and the poor poorer.

What happens when the "Call Center" (ai servers) are in India?(or whatever countries don't ban AI) They'd need to make sure laws prevented companies from outsourcing.

1

CypherLH t1_j8up0yr wrote

Reply to comment by [deleted] in Emerging Behaviour by SirDidymus

Your assertion is obviously true NOW and not many people are seriously claiming that chatGPT and other current LLM's are actually conscious or AGI. The thing is they sure seem to be showing a massive step down the path towards getting those things. A legit argument can be made that we're now looking at something approaching proto-AGI...which is wild, this was science fiction even a year ago.

1