Recent comments in /f/singularity

Cryptizard t1_je6qdax wrote

Reply to The argument that a computer can't really "understand" things is stupid and completely irrelevant. by hey__bert

If it has understanding, it is a strange, statistical-based understanding that doesn't align with what many people think of as rational intelligence. For instance, a LLM can learn that 2+2=4 by seeing it a bunch of times in its input. But, you can also convince it that 2+2=5 by telling it that is true enough times. It cannot take a prior rule and use it to discard future data. Eventually, new data will overwrite the old understanding.

It doesn't have the ability to take a simple logical postulate and apply it consistently to discover new things. Because there are no things that are absolutely true to a LLM. It is purely statistical, which always leads to some chance to conflict with itself ("hallucinating" they call it).

This is probably why we need a more sophisticated multi-part AI system to really achieve AGI. LLMs are great at what they do, but what they do is not everything. Language is flexible and imprecise, so statistical modeling works great for it. Other things are not, and LLMs tend to fail there.

75

aalluubbaa t1_je6p295 wrote

Reply to Do you guys think AGI will cure mental disorders? by Ok-Wing111

It depends on how far the tech evolves but there is nothing mysterious about mental disorders as humans are made out of chemicals with atoms.

I would assume that once an ASI could manipulate things at atomic levels, anything which is possible scientifically can be achieved. So I guess yes

6

mattmahoneyfl t1_je6opui wrote

Reply to What are the so-called 'jobs' that AI will create? by thecatneverlies

In 1800 most people were farmers. Automation put most of them out of work. And yet we still have full employment. What happened? Why did nobody predict social media influencers?

Technology makes stuff cheaper. The money you save is spent on other stuff. That spending creates new jobs.

−6

aalluubbaa t1_je6ogsy wrote

Reply to comment by [deleted] in The argument that a computer can't really "understand" things is stupid and completely irrelevant. by hey__bert

How do you come up with this conclusion? I don’t know how you do that but if you use the same criteria, I don’t think humans are trained with less.

Even for things as simple as image recognition. Humans have the advantage of looking at an object from a continuous,infinitely high res with continuous frames as you move around to look at the object from a 3d surrounding. We also experience gravity, air flow, smell, relative size and a lot that I may miss. So how do you compare a child who see a banana in real life with multiple senses to deep learning models which just see pixels?

12

agonypants t1_je6o8uj wrote

Reply to comment by SkyeandJett in Would it be a good idea for AI to govern society? by JamPixD

I've often wondered what law enforcement would look like in a post-scarcity economy. If money is eliminated entirely, who pays the taxes to keep government and law enforcement running? If property crime diminishes to nothing due to radical abundance, what's left? Violent crime, sex crimes, copyright (maybe), real estate law?

I guess we're going to find out in the not too distant future.

1