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.
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.