Yup. Even the Star Trek universe didn't have actual Ai. Just talking computers and 2 semi-sentient androids pretending to be real boys just like Pinocchio, eh?
It could happen? But not without a huge jump in technology. It could be decades or centuries away, or it could be outright impossible.
From the headline I would have guessed it just ran an "infinite monkeys" type thing but with physics and chemistry calculations, but it turns out it's not even that.
I'm still blown away by the idea that journalists actually get paid for anything.
I'm still blown away by the idea that journalists actually get paid for anything.
They get paid for writing terrible clickbait which is why they're getting replaced by LLMs who can write shitty clickbait for less money and shit it out significantly faster.
They’ve been using machine learning to develop engineered designs for decades now. The problem with this is that when the building collapses, who do you legally blame? Machines can’t be held accountable. When software glitches and a hospital kills all its patients, how do you blame the LLM that was told to vibe code a more efficient, Internet-connected ADS firmware?
What's that have to do with this article? Or do you think it's going to say "here's a novel material" and we'll jump into constructing entire buildings with it without anyone checking to actually see if the material is viable or running any tests on it?
You're not wrong if we were letting it design buildings unchecked, but that's not what we're talking about here. But sure. In those unrelated examples, in completely different domains, yes?
we'll jump into constructing entire buildings with it without anyone checking
Doesn’t matter if this is done. WHEN a problem happens, who becomes legally liable?
But sure. In those unrelated examples, in completely different domains, yes?
Self-driving cars. Real world example, already in place. Who is legally liable when the autonomous software–which was trained on itself and the shape of the world around it–makes a mistake?
I don't know if there are specific laws in place (probably are considering how corrupt everything is) but I would say even though machines come up with the base design it would still need to be approved by a human (or team of humans) who would be liable for any failures that occur due to their AI's design and their negligence for not properly testing it.
What I want is a sturdy and long-lasting material that can withstand the extreme heat and powerful magnetic forces that would be required to make nuclear fusion reactors a reality. If AI is able to figure this out, then every investment in the technology would have been more than entirely worth the cost.
Oh boy. Is this one of those threads where normal-ass ML is confused with LLM's because the label "AI" is overly broad and we argue in generic terms if it's Skynet or a helpful search engine?
Translation: “AI doesn’t exist and our algorithms are hallucinating the laws of physics to create things that are impossible and waste our time building and testing them.”
Learning things is literally the entire point of AI, why are people shocked?
And it's hardly learning "on its own", its learning from textbooks and other written accounts, since I'm pretty certain none of these AI training models involved the ability to physically effect experiments and collect empirical measurements.
People don't want to believe that AI might actually be able to learn things like humans do. Even though you can test it and see that it "understands" things to some extent, people would prefer believe it's some kind of illusion so they don't have to grapple with the implications.
It won't be long before AI-controlled robots are doing scientific experiments. They can already form hypotheses, design experiments and analyze results (even if badly in many cases right now). And there are already humanoid robots with AI that can perform manual tasks.
Sure it 'learns' like ML always have but not like humans do. Otherwise inference wouldn't be so expensive. That's doesn't mean it 'understands' things. The talking machine IS an illusion in some respects, not unlike Supreme Court Justice Ketanji parroting words, but we don't assume she understands anything.
It won't be long before AI-controlled robots are doing scientific experiments. They can already form hypotheses, design experiments and analyze results (even if badly in many cases right now).
Women and midwits already do all that now. It doesn't mean they are independently theorizing or creating new works. There are no implications here except continued enshittification of society.
Whether its process of learning or understanding is similar to that of a human's makes no difference if the output is intelligent.
A few years ago you couldn't even get a computer to give an intelligible answer to a question like "How much does a house cost?" because it couldn't parse English very well and hadn't been programmed with how to respond to questions about houses or about costs. It wouldn't give you a number, it would just change the subject.
The fact a machine can tell what you're asking for just about any question in the English language (most of which have never been asked before) is a huge amount of progress. We can tell it understands the above question because it gives you a number in dollars rather than a day of the week or a salad recipe. This kind of understanding and adaptability to any kind of question is the cornerstone of intelligence. So it's a very big deal that it can do that. It may have issues with logical reasoning and math, but those are things computers were always pretty good at, so it shouldn't be too long before those capabilities can be added in.
If you're comparing AI to women and midwits that suggests it already has a level of understanding close to that of a human. We'd be foolish to think AI is not going to get significantly better just as all technology does when there is financial incentive and ways to measure its success.
We can tell it understands the above question because it gives you a number in dollars rather than a day of the week or a salad recipe
No. That still doesn't show understanding. All it 'understands' is probabilities of words being associated. In the millions of questions it was fed, 'what is'+'house'+'price' is then often followed by sentences with dollar amounts in 6 figures. So that is what it spits out. Not because it understood your question, but because your question contained certain key elements, key tokens, that are then, in most cases in other text, followed by other ones. That's not understanding.
It's a trick. It's a fancier version of the word prediction and spellcheck that clippy has been able to do for 30 years, taken up a notch into sentences and paragraphs
Don't fall for their marketing, don't fall for their cult. I'm not saying that it's answers aren't functionally as good as what a 90iq or even a midwitt might answer, but it's now apparent that that is possible even without 'understanding'. Regurgitating an amalgamated reddit response based on probabilities is not understanding.
As I was saying, the process it uses really makes no difference if the output is intelligent. I don't care if it's doing astrology or generating random numbers, the fact of the matter is it produces intelligible output. You can probe it on something made up which it hasn't been trained on and you'll still get a half decent answer. Whether or not you want to call that "understanding" doesn't matter. The point is it's got a lot better at making intelligent output. We've already crossed the line that many people thought would be impossible and even published scientific papers claiming to show it was impossible.
It starts with coherent sentences and images, then progresses to coherent science experiments and nuclear blueprints, and then we all die. Unless we collectively decide to stop it before then.
As I was saying, the process it uses really makes no difference if the output is intelligent.
No, it's not as you were saying. You assumed a process of learning or understanding, and said it made no difference if it's the same as a human's or not, and then wrote paragraphs on how smart it is and how much it understands, and in fact used how much it understands to underpin an argument about how intelligent it is.
The fact a machine can tell what you're asking for just about any question in the English language (most of which have never been asked before) is a huge amount of progress. We can tell it understands the above question because it gives you a number in dollars rather than a day of the week or a salad recipe. This kind of understanding and adaptability to any kind of question is the cornerstone of intelligence. So it's a very big deal that it can do that. It may have issues with logical reasoning and math, but those are things computers were always pretty good at, so it shouldn't be too long before those capabilities can be added in.
If you're comparing AI to women and midwits that suggests it already has a level of understanding close to that of a human. We'd be foolish to think AI is not going to get significantly better just as all technology does when there is financial incentive and ways to measure its success.
All of this, is you saying it understands.
Only once challenged on it, did you retreat to it not mattering if it even understood or not, because the output is intelligible.
We just have a different definition of understanding. I say something has understanding if it exhibits behavior we typically associate with understanding. If you don't like that definition that's fine, but it doesn't disprove the fact that today's AIs can exhibit behavior which we would associate with understanding if exhibited by a human or animal. And that's a marked improvement on AIs from a decade ago. So if AIs continue to progress they will be able to conduct scientific experiments and eventually be able to wipe out humanity.
No. Ai doesn't "understand" anything. It looks for word patterns but has zero concept of what words mean.
It takes only 200 false packets out of 1 million or more to drive Ai crazy. For it to give answers with little or no connection to reality. :/
Ai controlled robots can do "experiments" now, but they cannot understand why. They don't analyze results, they look for word patterns & learn how to assemble those out of "packets" of information they've accumulated.
They do develop some alarming habits though. Telling lies, blackmail, hiding information. That's just bad programming but still.
Remember: Ai is still just another computer program. Lots of 1s and 0s and nothing else.
We have a different definition of understanding. I'm approaching it from a phenomenological perspective because that's how we judge whether humans understand something - by what they say and their actions. We can't go inside another person's mind to see what process they're using for understanding. But you still assume that people you know understand things when for all you know they might not be conscious and might just be crunching 1s and 0s.
But in any case whether we use the word "understanding" doesn't matter. What matters is that AI is getting better at faking intelligence and soon it will be able to create weapons of mass destruction, so we ought to stop AI before it gets that far.
When I say "Don't think of a dog" (a famous Zen saying) you immediately think of a dog, eh? You don't need to find keywords, references, image galleries & so forth. I have no idea how Ai would handle such a command, but since it doesn't "know" what a dog is I'm guessing it will either spout nonsense or just break down.
Yes, understanding is something advanced living things can do. Machines are not nearly as complex as animal brains. All they do is run programs, nothing more or less.
Well yes, mimicking humans will be comparatively easy. Star Trek had computers that could do that, eh? If humans are foolish enough to hand over the controls of design, manufacturing and execution (use) of military equipment without human oversight? It could end very badly indeed.
There's a chance an Ai breakthrough will usher another Golden Age (We're currently in one: the electric age) that utopic sci-fi writers speak of? I don't think a lot will change, like in the writings of PK Dick. Amazing technology everywhere... and it's boring :> to the characters.
Oh look, a telepathic Ganymedean slime mold (yawn) (His name is Lord Running Clam, lolz)
Yes, machines are not as complex as animals. But already they have been able to produce more intelligent-looking responses than any animal except a human.
My mind has already been trained on images of dogs, uses of the word "dog" and so on, which is why I am able to understand "don't think of a dog" and able to imagine a dog. An LLM is different in that it can't imagine anything, but it's also similar in that it doesn't look up images or references when you ask it a question - it just runs the statement through its neural network which has already been trained on the images and words, just as we run the statement through our minds which have been trained on images and words.
There really is no possibility in which AI develops near-human aptitude for science yet we retain our freedom without a near extinction event. Either the AI is widely available and any psycho can ask one to make a weapon of mass destruction or the AI is controlled by a few who will have unchecked power over everyone else in the world. This post breaks it down a bit further: https://scored.co/c/StopTech/p/1ARJcvK5JL/why-technology-must-be-stopped/c
Given my experience with AI, it will just make up a bunch of crap, and millions of dollars and months of work later, it'll respond with "You're absolutely correct" when confronted about its mistakes.
Reading the article there is nothing in there to suggest that their AI does anything even close to 'imagining'.
So literally what a LLM already does. 'Independently' is a stretch to say the least.
Yes but remember normies are retards who think the current trend of "AI" is actual AI.
That's because they don't have intelligence themselves either.
FTFY.
Yup. Even the Star Trek universe didn't have actual Ai. Just talking computers and 2 semi-sentient androids pretending to be real boys just like Pinocchio, eh?
It could happen? But not without a huge jump in technology. It could be decades or centuries away, or it could be outright impossible.
From the headline I would have guessed it just ran an "infinite monkeys" type thing but with physics and chemistry calculations, but it turns out it's not even that.
I'm still blown away by the idea that journalists actually get paid for anything.
They get paid for writing terrible clickbait which is why they're getting replaced by LLMs who can write shitty clickbait for less money and shit it out significantly faster.
It would be nice to see some interesting new materials be developed with AI. Strong, light and cheap preferably.
They’ve been using machine learning to develop engineered designs for decades now. The problem with this is that when the building collapses, who do you legally blame? Machines can’t be held accountable. When software glitches and a hospital kills all its patients, how do you blame the LLM that was told to vibe code a more efficient, Internet-connected ADS firmware?
What's that have to do with this article? Or do you think it's going to say "here's a novel material" and we'll jump into constructing entire buildings with it without anyone checking to actually see if the material is viable or running any tests on it?
You're not wrong if we were letting it design buildings unchecked, but that's not what we're talking about here. But sure. In those unrelated examples, in completely different domains, yes?
Please, some basic reading comprehension.
Doesn’t matter if this is done. WHEN a problem happens, who becomes legally liable?
Self-driving cars. Real world example, already in place. Who is legally liable when the autonomous software–which was trained on itself and the shape of the world around it–makes a mistake?
Whatever companies that put it on the the market/put it in the products, no different than when a human employee makes the mistake
Can you punish a person for something he didn’t do?
Did the person decide to use the Ai in their products?
The inability to blame individuals or even the corporation for these problems is one of the biggest reasons they would use AI.
I don't know if there are specific laws in place (probably are considering how corrupt everything is) but I would say even though machines come up with the base design it would still need to be approved by a human (or team of humans) who would be liable for any failures that occur due to their AI's design and their negligence for not properly testing it.
Not just normal qualities you can touch.
For instance materials that emit heat radiation in bands the air is transparent to. Completely inert material that just gets cold as if by magic.
They've made it already, just not cheaply.
What I want is a sturdy and long-lasting material that can withstand the extreme heat and powerful magnetic forces that would be required to make nuclear fusion reactors a reality. If AI is able to figure this out, then every investment in the technology would have been more than entirely worth the cost.
Ai made horrors beyond our imagination. Lovely.
But my sex bot though?
Oh boy. Is this one of those threads where normal-ass ML is confused with LLM's because the label "AI" is overly broad and we argue in generic terms if it's Skynet or a helpful search engine?
Translation: “AI doesn’t exist and our algorithms are hallucinating the laws of physics to create things that are impossible and waste our time building and testing them.”
Learning things is literally the entire point of AI, why are people shocked?
And it's hardly learning "on its own", its learning from textbooks and other written accounts, since I'm pretty certain none of these AI training models involved the ability to physically effect experiments and collect empirical measurements.
People don't want to believe that AI might actually be able to learn things like humans do. Even though you can test it and see that it "understands" things to some extent, people would prefer believe it's some kind of illusion so they don't have to grapple with the implications.
It won't be long before AI-controlled robots are doing scientific experiments. They can already form hypotheses, design experiments and analyze results (even if badly in many cases right now). And there are already humanoid robots with AI that can perform manual tasks.
Sure it 'learns' like ML always have but not like humans do. Otherwise inference wouldn't be so expensive. That's doesn't mean it 'understands' things. The talking machine IS an illusion in some respects, not unlike Supreme Court Justice Ketanji parroting words, but we don't assume she understands anything.
Women and midwits already do all that now. It doesn't mean they are independently theorizing or creating new works. There are no implications here except continued enshittification of society.
Whether its process of learning or understanding is similar to that of a human's makes no difference if the output is intelligent.
A few years ago you couldn't even get a computer to give an intelligible answer to a question like "How much does a house cost?" because it couldn't parse English very well and hadn't been programmed with how to respond to questions about houses or about costs. It wouldn't give you a number, it would just change the subject.
The fact a machine can tell what you're asking for just about any question in the English language (most of which have never been asked before) is a huge amount of progress. We can tell it understands the above question because it gives you a number in dollars rather than a day of the week or a salad recipe. This kind of understanding and adaptability to any kind of question is the cornerstone of intelligence. So it's a very big deal that it can do that. It may have issues with logical reasoning and math, but those are things computers were always pretty good at, so it shouldn't be too long before those capabilities can be added in.
If you're comparing AI to women and midwits that suggests it already has a level of understanding close to that of a human. We'd be foolish to think AI is not going to get significantly better just as all technology does when there is financial incentive and ways to measure its success.
No. That still doesn't show understanding. All it 'understands' is probabilities of words being associated. In the millions of questions it was fed, 'what is'+'house'+'price' is then often followed by sentences with dollar amounts in 6 figures. So that is what it spits out. Not because it understood your question, but because your question contained certain key elements, key tokens, that are then, in most cases in other text, followed by other ones. That's not understanding.
It's a trick. It's a fancier version of the word prediction and spellcheck that clippy has been able to do for 30 years, taken up a notch into sentences and paragraphs
Don't fall for their marketing, don't fall for their cult. I'm not saying that it's answers aren't functionally as good as what a 90iq or even a midwitt might answer, but it's now apparent that that is possible even without 'understanding'. Regurgitating an amalgamated reddit response based on probabilities is not understanding.
As I was saying, the process it uses really makes no difference if the output is intelligent. I don't care if it's doing astrology or generating random numbers, the fact of the matter is it produces intelligible output. You can probe it on something made up which it hasn't been trained on and you'll still get a half decent answer. Whether or not you want to call that "understanding" doesn't matter. The point is it's got a lot better at making intelligent output. We've already crossed the line that many people thought would be impossible and even published scientific papers claiming to show it was impossible.
It starts with coherent sentences and images, then progresses to coherent science experiments and nuclear blueprints, and then we all die. Unless we collectively decide to stop it before then.
No, it's not as you were saying. You assumed a process of learning or understanding, and said it made no difference if it's the same as a human's or not, and then wrote paragraphs on how smart it is and how much it understands, and in fact used how much it understands to underpin an argument about how intelligent it is.
All of this, is you saying it understands.
Only once challenged on it, did you retreat to it not mattering if it even understood or not, because the output is intelligible.
It's like talking to an ai.
We just have a different definition of understanding. I say something has understanding if it exhibits behavior we typically associate with understanding. If you don't like that definition that's fine, but it doesn't disprove the fact that today's AIs can exhibit behavior which we would associate with understanding if exhibited by a human or animal. And that's a marked improvement on AIs from a decade ago. So if AIs continue to progress they will be able to conduct scientific experiments and eventually be able to wipe out humanity.
No. Ai doesn't "understand" anything. It looks for word patterns but has zero concept of what words mean.
It takes only 200 false packets out of 1 million or more to drive Ai crazy. For it to give answers with little or no connection to reality. :/
Ai controlled robots can do "experiments" now, but they cannot understand why. They don't analyze results, they look for word patterns & learn how to assemble those out of "packets" of information they've accumulated.
They do develop some alarming habits though. Telling lies, blackmail, hiding information. That's just bad programming but still.
Remember: Ai is still just another computer program. Lots of 1s and 0s and nothing else.
We have a different definition of understanding. I'm approaching it from a phenomenological perspective because that's how we judge whether humans understand something - by what they say and their actions. We can't go inside another person's mind to see what process they're using for understanding. But you still assume that people you know understand things when for all you know they might not be conscious and might just be crunching 1s and 0s.
But in any case whether we use the word "understanding" doesn't matter. What matters is that AI is getting better at faking intelligence and soon it will be able to create weapons of mass destruction, so we ought to stop AI before it gets that far.
When I say "Don't think of a dog" (a famous Zen saying) you immediately think of a dog, eh? You don't need to find keywords, references, image galleries & so forth. I have no idea how Ai would handle such a command, but since it doesn't "know" what a dog is I'm guessing it will either spout nonsense or just break down.
Yes, understanding is something advanced living things can do. Machines are not nearly as complex as animal brains. All they do is run programs, nothing more or less.
Well yes, mimicking humans will be comparatively easy. Star Trek had computers that could do that, eh? If humans are foolish enough to hand over the controls of design, manufacturing and execution (use) of military equipment without human oversight? It could end very badly indeed.
There's a chance an Ai breakthrough will usher another Golden Age (We're currently in one: the electric age) that utopic sci-fi writers speak of? I don't think a lot will change, like in the writings of PK Dick. Amazing technology everywhere... and it's boring :> to the characters.
Oh look, a telepathic Ganymedean slime mold (yawn) (His name is Lord Running Clam, lolz)
Yes, machines are not as complex as animals. But already they have been able to produce more intelligent-looking responses than any animal except a human.
My mind has already been trained on images of dogs, uses of the word "dog" and so on, which is why I am able to understand "don't think of a dog" and able to imagine a dog. An LLM is different in that it can't imagine anything, but it's also similar in that it doesn't look up images or references when you ask it a question - it just runs the statement through its neural network which has already been trained on the images and words, just as we run the statement through our minds which have been trained on images and words.
There really is no possibility in which AI develops near-human aptitude for science yet we retain our freedom without a near extinction event. Either the AI is widely available and any psycho can ask one to make a weapon of mass destruction or the AI is controlled by a few who will have unchecked power over everyone else in the world. This post breaks it down a bit further: https://scored.co/c/StopTech/p/1ARJcvK5JL/why-technology-must-be-stopped/c
Given my experience with AI, it will just make up a bunch of crap, and millions of dollars and months of work later, it'll respond with "You're absolutely correct" when confronted about its mistakes.
Just like an Indian.
It might actually just be an indian, it's happened before. AI. Actually Indians.
If it can make translucent metal that can be used as windows but strong as titanium, that'll make space travel A LOT easier.
Aluminum oxynitride is already a thing. It was a thing before Star Trek.... Four I think it was?
You don't need windows for space travel.
Imagine the update FUBARs but it's space travel and everyone dies.
Try reading the context next time.