9 ms·
The "something deeply wrong" part about AI, that even most technology enthusiasts evidently do not seem to grasp, is that it is still fundamentally a statistica
by TalkingCodeMonk 26d ago
The "something deeply wrong" part about AI, that even most technology enthusiasts evidently do not seem to grasp, is that it is still fundamentally a statistical model — an algorithmic construct — and does not possess any real intelligence or critical thought whatsoever.
No matter how much investors and tech companies want you to believe that they are on the verge of super intelligence, nothing I've seen to date can not easily be explained by "correlation engine", including the "novel" math solutions, all of which appear to just be "a composition of solutions humans have developed and documented elsewhere" upon deeper inspection.
- opem 26d agoAI is just a good permutation/combination engine that tries to act smart with help of statistics. At best I only see AI as, 1. An autocomplete on steroid, 2. Good search/correlation engine
- tempodox 26d agoThank you for helping me keep my sanity.
- pyridines 26d agoI just can't accept that it possesses no intelligence. It is not equivalent to human intelligence, obviously, but how can a system without some semblance of rational thinking solve open math problems? Even composing earlier human work into something novel requires intelligence and understanding on some level.
- figers 26d agowatch this and see if you think it has intelligence by the end https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kYUicaho5k8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kYUicaho5k8
- bayindirh 26d agoI also like this: https://laurentiugabriel.github.io/token-town/ https://laurentiugabriel.github.io/token-town/ It shows internals of an LLM nicely, simplified manner.
- pyridines 26d agoThis looks interesting, but would you mind saying a sentence or two about why before I commit to an hour-long video? It looks like it shows how they work internally, which is sort of a non sequitur. Brains also work mechanistically. I'm claiming that any system which is able to do what AIs do must necessarily have some sort of intelligence.
- figers 26d agofair reply to an hour video, Scott is just so good to hear his talk is better than I can explain it... go to 24 minutes and 07 seconds. it's statistically determining what the next word should be based on all the text it's been trained on. It's not intelligence and he shows what probability it puts on each word that it chooses, but also shows a lot of the other words it was thinking of using. In a later part he shows how it uses words that are not the highest probability (and you question why did it go this route, it's not more correct), but the user never sees this, they see what they think is the correct answer always... he also shows how context you feed it has a lot to do with what it returns... to the point he can get it to return the capital of France is Marseille, just by typing Marseille a bunch of times before the question. Human intelligence doesn't get confused like that. And it's not a "hallucination", it's just probability of the next token prediction based on the information it's been trained on and fed, it's not intelligence.
- rnd33 26d agoIsn't this a case of missing the trees for the forest though? The human brain is not an LLM, and an LLM is not intelligent in the same way as a human brain. However, an LLM is a prediction machine, prediction IS at the very least one (or the most fundamental) element of intelligence. The brain most surely contains at least some kind of simulacrum of a prediction machine. How that prediction machine is used or wrapped is another matter. If I said to you: "Blue blue blue, the color of my car is red", would you have absolute confidence in your prediction that my car is red? Or would the way I phrased that sentence make you slightly uncertain, and wonder if there's some miscommunication going on here?
- 26d ago
- ragequittah 26d agoI wonder if you went back before we had any idea how the brain worked and talked to the smartest people about how neurons work (without giving away that it's a human brain) then asked them all "would such a system be intelligent?" how many would say yes. The main problem I have with people stating it's not intelligent or conscious is I don't think we even have a good definition of either word that satisfies everyone. Philosophers have been trying (and failing) to elegantly define these things forever and everyone out here proclaiming they've got the definitive answer and this specific thing they're seeing doesn't fit under it.
- sophrosyne42 26d agoThe definition issue cuts both ways. It is just as much an issue for those insisting that LLMs are intelligent/conscious in some way.
- ragequittah 25d agoAgreed. All I can say is the conversations I have with AI and the things it's able to do for me are more useful than most any human I've come across. Whether that's 'intelligence' or not is a moot point to me. Consciousness is an interesting debate only because, similar to the natural world, if we declare something like "fish aren't conscious / don't feel pain" that then creates a real problem for the fish if we're wrong.
- bayindirh 26d agoIt's just filled to the brim with relations between things. It's good at searching a very large meaning space and create correlations. What it does is to cover great distances and find related things in that large space which needs a long time and large corpus of knowledge to find the connection. This is not intelligence. It's just a good correlation engine with a very big albeit lossy database of things.
- pyridines 26d agoThe very fact that it is able to search within a meaning-space demonstrates that it understands semantics, to some extent. Philosophically, that is profound, for something that is just one big matrix multiplication. Drawing connections between things in meaning-space is surely a facet of intelligence.
- deleted 26d ago[deleted]
- bayindirh 26d agoIt’s not intelligence if you are the one who gives the correlations to the model in the pre-training. It’s Word2Vec, applied. Model doesn’t learn anything. You embed these correlations and build it from there. It just searches the space. As my AI professor said in the first lecture: “All AI is advanced search”.
- deleted 26d ago[deleted]
- _ifton 26d agoThey perform tasks too. They execute functions. This has real world implications beyond search.
- pyridines 26d agoOkay, I guess you're right that its ability to do this is just correlational, which doesn't imply it has any understanding. However, you have to conclude that some tasks which we used to believe required intelligence don't actually require any, which is disconcerting.
- ThrowawayR2 26d agoLLMs are pattern prediction systems with a large training data set. It is not surprising that they can predict patterns, particularly for a well structured field like mathematics that is also amenable to automated proof checking to help steer it.
- red75prime 26d ago"Pattern prediction" is a very broad stroke. What's something AI can never do that would astonish you if it did?
- xigoi 25d agoPerform the same tasks as a human can, given only the amount of training data and energy that a typical human has access to.
- red75prime 24d agoI guess it will take quite a while before we reverse engineer the human brain to find all the optimizations and shortcuts that evolution has used to make the human brain reach intellectual maturity in just about 20 years.
- ThrowawayR2 25d ago"AI" is a vague term that encompasses both traditional GOFAI, LLMs, and future tech so your question is meaningless. Non-human intelligence is possible, if that's what you're actually asking. What part of my statement do you take issue with: that LLMs are pattern predictors (that's literally what the algorithm that runs it does) or that mathematics is rules-based and checkable and therefore amenable to automated pattern prediction?
- red75prime 24d agoMy issue is that I can't predict what you'll find surprising, if an LLM (with a harness) would be able to do it. If you are able to check that the results of an LLM are satisfactory, it means that the results are checkable. Then, in retrospect, the process of LLM coming up with those results is rule-based, because an LLM is a large set of data manipulation rules. In short, which concrete thing that an LLM does would surprise you?
- bluetomcat 26d agoIt has no semantic depth. The sentences and the paragraphs are a statistically viable derivation of existing human text, but once you try to grasp the whole thing with its temporal and spatial dimensions, you are left with a blurry mess that rots your brain. It's a polished, inoffensive and shallow interpretation as written by an opinionated reputation-seeking user of Quora, circa 2019. Assertive, bold, without typos, clean-cut and bulleted, but without an interesting semantic core.
- josh-sematic 26d agoYeah, I hated all those Quora users that would just spew out semantically meaningless slop like increasing an important bound for the Riemann hypothesis. https://www-cdn.anthropic.com/564f962e60643842f5fcb4a17c9dbc8f608f1c37.pdf https://www-cdn.anthropic.com/564f962e60643842f5fcb4a17c9dbc...
- serbuvlad 26d agoIt's all so tiring. Everyone decides what to think on this issue, then finds out facts to support their idea. As it stands they are massively useful tools, but for generating usable products they require either A) a lot of expert steering or B) a well defined easily verifiable target and a large compute budget. Most people are using them in mode A with good effect, the progress on math has been done in mode B, which is very promising. Just a year and a half ago their maximal use was rephrase, summarize, and homework-level tasks. Five years from now? There be dragons. "But are they generally intelligent?" What a meaningless question!
- ddj231 26d agoNot meaningless because part of the discussion is the issue of anthropomorphizing this tech. When we use language like “intelligent” it carries hints of personhood. People begin sadly treating these things as persons. We can reap the benefits while clearly telling the consumer this is just a language algorithm.
- 25d ago
- wongarsu 26d agoWe couldn't agree on what intelligence means before ChatGPT happened. Now, agreement on the term seems even further away If performing well on an IQ test or performing at a high level on knowledge work is intelligence to you, these models are intelligent. If intelligence requires sentience for you, then ... well, I don't think we really agree what that is either, never mind how to measure it. But LLMs certainly don't have it right now But the consistent trend of the last couple decades (arguably since Turing's time) seems to be that any time a computer reaches our definition of intelligence we decide that that was a flawed definition
- tshaddox 26d agoI don't think "intelligence" needs to carry all the intrigue and woo of related words like "consciousness" or "creative." If we just use "intelligence" to mean "the ability of a system to solve problems that are new to the system," that pretty much matches the dictionary definition and normal usage of the term. We don't need to touch messy questions like "is there something it's like to be a bat" to conclude that bats exhibit intelligence when they navigate long distances and hunt for food.
- svachalek 26d agoI agree, but it's clear most people need a definition of intelligence that (1) they qualify for and (2) nothing/no one they don't like qualifies for. And they'll keep redefining intelligence until they satisfy both criteria.
- thfuran 26d agoI'm not exactly that you mean by "new to the system", but it seems to me that that definition makes a calculator intelligent, which I can't agree with.
- rcxdude 26d agoIntelligence isn't a binary property. Is it really a problem to say that a calculator has some intelligence? That it's more intelligent than e.g. a rock?
- duped 26d agoI don't think statistically driven prediction implies reasoning or intelligence.
- malfist 26d agoIts a mirror to human intelligence. Regurgitating phrasing to match what someone who can reason put together, but it isn't any more intelligent than the reflection of you in the mirror is.
- stevenhuang 26d agoFirst you need to prove that human cognitive function is also not fundamentally driven by statistical processes. It's possible that "statistically driven prediction" is all we are.
- EA-3167 26d agoI suspect like most you don't appreciate how terrifying statistical relationships become when you have truly vast data sets to train on... and also that we as humans aren't as shockingly unique as we think (compared to other humans I mean).
- prophesi 26d agoI'm guessing whether you believe it possesses intelligence or not depends on your answer to Searle's Chinese room thought experiment[0]. I'd also recommend checking out the Peter Watts' book, Blindsight. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_room https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_room
- staticman2 26d agoThis comment thread was started with discussions of AI doing a bad job at a task (communication). Doesn't the Chinese Room posit an AI good at the task of communication?
- rcxdude 26d agoThe Chinese Room mainly just posits a room that passes the Turing Test, which LLMs do pretty well outside of outright adversarial situations.
- codethief 26d agoDo they? https://longbets.org/1/ https://longbets.org/1/ has yet to be settled. Either way, I doubt an LLM could fool anyone here who who knows how LLMs work into thinking it is human, at least not for an extended period of time (think about context length/compression, prompt injections, …).
- idiotsecant 26d agoYou'll notice those goalposts are substantially stretched from the original test.
- codethief 25d agoHow so?
- jay_kyburz 26d agoAIs are better communicators that most of people I have worked with in my life. They are infinitely patient, don't mind going into more detail if I ask, not too bad at summary, have no ego and don't boast. They are also not too afraid of hurting my feelings, they will tell me my code sux if it does. I'd don't care if they fit a definition intelligent, they are good colleagues. They have strengths and weaknesses sure, but so do people.
- mythrwy 26d agoWhile being very capable, AI is missing something required for true intelligence and I struggle to explain exactly what it is I see missing. It's not really "creativity" because much of that always was derivative in my opinion. And LLMs are (for some definition of the word) fairly creative as far as taking known elements and re-arranging them. I think what is missing is sort of a world model building capability. As humans we see phenomenon and classify them informally and model "what would it look like if this were the cause of that?" type scenarios. We see qualities in phenomena and realize this applies to other things even though the things may be completely different. We run informal "thought experiments" sort of. This is hard to duplicate because a lot (most?) of it occurs outside of systems of symbols like math and language with fixed rules in my opinion. Anyway yes, lots of human thinking is statistical and LLMs have that down pretty well but they are not "smart" I have concluded and it might be a very long time, if ever, until they are. That isn't to say they aren't very capable tools which they obviously are.
- buzzin__ 26d agoSo, right of the bat, you are warning us that you are going to apply the " no true Sscottman" fallacy, and that we should brace ourselves. Yes, models posses intelligence, but it is not a true one. Then you claim that models do not posses world-building capabilities. But this is simply not true. Even ignoring the whole subgenre of scientific papers on exactly that subject, it is not that hard to build some hypothetical scenarios, big or small, and then witness the ease with which models do navigate those worlds.
- layla5alive 26d agoYes. And they are criticizing a model for not having a default mode network - as if that is some impossibility rather than just an artifact of the current iteration of the specific architectures we have built so far. Why do people paint with these broad brushes over relatively specific complaints? LLMs are likely for machine intelligence something like drosophila are to biological intelligence - relatively early on the high dimensional spectrum of possibility. Though it stikes me that in a different way they're little alike - drosophila are relatively small and efficient.
- ddj231 26d agoBy that logic you’d have to call other algorithms intelligent. With more basic algorithms we know that it’s clearly the human programmer and the interpreter of the outputs that are intelligent and not the algorithm itself. For some reason with AI that goes out the window. I believe it should not.
- PaulHoule 26d agoSome of it the effect of tells. “It’s not X, it’s Y” is not a bad pattern but it was baked into the instruction following training set just like the other patterns. I catch myself about to use it and use something else because I want to look human. I have, a few times, tried to use AI to write something that I was struggling to find the words and I just didn’t like how it didn’t seem like my voice. If there was just one person doing it would be OK but when it is 100s of blog posts submitted to HN a day it is like wearing a “I’m an NPC” t-shirt.
- sa-code 26d agoSomeone shared with me this system prompt that at least makes assistant outputs usable For information retrieval tasks, I want you to provide links to sources and use exact quotes as much as possible. When using a source, consider if it is primary or secondary information. If secondary sources are found, search again for primary sources. Sources and quotes, if applicable, should be mentioned in the answer first before the rest of the response with links.
- cPc_bot 26d ago[flagged]
- JC5 25d agoYou're giving your model instructions that it's literally incapable of understanding. A random word selection lottery machine will never do anything meaningful to determine if a source is primary or secondary.
- jxramos 25d agoIt is admittedly awkward to bend to the machine to get what you want. I see these kinds of constraints like given above as an impetus to push the LLM designers to rise to the occasion, assuming they’re listening to all the prompts funneling back their way. This may all be wishful thinking however but hopefully someday these kinds of prompt constraints will be satisfied.
- 24d ago
- GPerson 26d agoI mean this in the kindest way possible, but you are wrong that the math solutions are that easily dismissed. And there are many more than are publicized. A specific math problem I wanted solved for 3 years did not get solved by any model until fable and, and I tried it on every model and know the literature surrounding it well.
- fallingbananna 26d agoAre we sure there is some objective, technical definition of what is intelligence and what is not? Isn't it rather a subjective philosophical concept? What if human intelligence is also a statistical model, trained by evolution to make decisions that lead to offspring? The one major difference I see between AI and people is the ability to learn and memorize. All memory/learning solutions that current AI architectures offer just feel like workarounds and simply don't work anywhere near as a person learning something new and remembering it.
- deleted 26d ago[deleted]
- Quarrelsome 26d ago> The "something deeply wrong" part about AI, that even most technology enthusiasts evidently do not seem to grasp, is that it is still fundamentally a statistical model — an algorithmic construct — and does not possess any real intelligence or critical thought whatsoever. I feel like that what a lot of people who say this don't seem to grasp, is that despite this flaw its still often capable of saying more interesting things than a lot of humans. Which says a lot about humans. Idk something about a mirror maybe and the output reflecting the input?
- dwattttt 26d ago> I feel like that what a lot of people who say this don't seem to grasp, is that despite this flaw its still often capable of saying more interesting things than a lot of humans. So does the Google search bar, but I don't ascribe intelligence to it.
- rcxdude 26d agoThe google search bar is surprisingly smart sometimes. What's your definition of intelligence that completely excludes most of what a computer does?
- dwattttt 26d agoHappily, I don't need to define "intelligence" here, because it's squarely in "I know it when I see it" territory. It's notoriously hard to define. I also don't ascribe intelligence to a pocket calculator.
- rcxdude 26d agoI don't find it's particularly hard to define loosely, but then I don't think of it as a special property of humans other than it tends to be quite high in them. But we are obviously talking about different things and if you're not going to provide a definition then it's not really the basis for a productive conversation.
- resonious 26d agoWhy is being statistics/algorithms wrong? What's wrong with that? The "A" means artificial so none of this seems surprising or weird or bad.
- DoctorOetker 26d ago> ... including the "novel" math solutions, all of which appear to just be "a composition of solutions humans have developed and documented elsewhere" upon deeper inspection. But that is precisely what human mathematicians do, prove new theorems by combining ones proven earlier. I don't see any fundamental difference in functionality between human intellectual contributions vs performant ML ones (LLM or otherwise). Whenever we listen or read text we are also predicting the near future content. Just like LLM's we sometimes correctly predict the next token or word, and sometimes incorrectly. > The "something deeply wrong" part about AI, that even most technology enthusiasts evidently do not seem to grasp, is that it is still fundamentally a statistical model [...] Imagine someone could pause the universe with a remote control, scroll back in time a little, press play again, and ask a slightly different question, etc. In such a thought experiment one could also collect the probabilities for a specific human predicting a next word. Implicitly the brain also has a corresponding statistical model, regardless of the construction being visible or hidden. I.e. human intelligence is also fundamentally a statistical model, so the only thing that remains from your claim is that machines for some unmentioned reason don't possess any "real" intelligence or critical thought... Is it possible that our aversion is simply driven by educational systems collectively and deeply ingraining into populations the idea that intelligence deserves the high costs commanded. Well of course this justifies higher wages towards the higher leadership positions, etc. Now it turns out that intelligence can be dirt cheap. We discover that the fact that "intelligence must be costly so don't question the costs of leadership" was never fundamentally true, so the real anger is this discovery of mismatch between the old claims which served to explain how every society that claimed to order itself and fill positions accordingly with "naturally pre-ordained individuals". Now we are seeing robots exceed average workers, for effectively a grain of rice.
- andrei_says_ 26d ago> But that is precisely what human mathematicians do, prove new theorems by combining ones proven earlier. I’d say “understanding and building upon ones proven earlier”
- DoctorOetker 25d ago
- ben_w 26d ago> The "something deeply wrong" part about AI, that even most technology enthusiasts evidently do not seem to grasp, is that it is still fundamentally a statistical model — an algorithmic construct — and does not possess any real intelligence or critical thought whatsoever. Not that I'm saying AI are like brains, but can you describe why brains, which are fundamentally slightly dodgy electrochemistry with frequent literal delusions of grander, are not "statistical"? > No matter how much investors and tech companies want you to believe that they are on the verge of super intelligence, nothing I've seen to date can not easily be explained by "correlation engine", including the "novel" math solutions, all of which appear to just be "a composition of solutions humans have developed and documented elsewhere" upon deeper inspection. Ditto, when do we humans do things exceeding the parameters of "correlation engine", especially if you consider compositing things either we or some other part of nature has developed and documented elsewhere to be insufficient?
- tharkun__ 26d agoI see what you did there with the —s!
- williamcotton 26d agoMost of these arguments are over some metaphysical definition of the word “intelligence”. As per later era Wittgenstein, I prefer to ignore these engagements and focus more on the meaning-as-use approach. What is the use of intelligence? What are the concrete outcomes of intelligence?
- airstrike 26d agoThis seems like a complete waste of time given the more practical and more urgent need to clarify to everyone involved that current LLMs are not actually intelligent.
- williamcotton 26d agoWhat an utterly unconvincing call to action. You’re not offering a rebuttal, just making another metaphysical claim about “intelligence.” You don’t even attempt to explain what practical distinction your use of the word is supposed to capture.
- jay_kyburz 26d agoI think airstrike is joking. :)
- airstrike 26d agoI appreciate the charitable interpretation but I was not even joking this time! :)
- jay_kyburz 26d agoOh, in that case I agree strongly with William. I think the definition of intelligence a complete waste of time and the only real question is, can these tool solve problems for us? The answer is clearly yes, there are some problems they can. The really interesting question is still a few years away when we ask if we humans have the right to turn these things on and off? ;)
- atomicnumber3 26d ago"and does not possess any real intelligence or critical thought whatsoever." unfortunately in most companies this is literally wrongthink and will get you shut down as being a scared luddite.
- paulddraper 26d ago> is that it is still fundamentally a statistical model — an algorithmic construct — and does not possess any real intelligence or critical thought whatsoever What makes you so convinced that a algorithmic construct of neural nets cannot be "real intelligence or critical thought"?
- inigyou 25d agoIt doesn't matter whether it theoretically could be. It matters whether current ones are.
- idiotsecant 26d agoAlright, take it easy. You typed a lot here but you're not actually saying much. LLMs produce useful outputs, their usefulness is just proportional to how well you know how to use them. Everything else is navel gazing.
- andai 26d agoA decent correlation engine is still extraordinarily valuable for science, investing, prediction, etc. Plenty of human minds are strong in the same area.
- lelanthran 26d ago> The "something deeply wrong" part about AI, that even most technology enthusiasts evidently do not seem to grasp, is that it is still fundamentally a statistical model — an algorithmic construct — and does not possess any real intelligence or critical thought whatsoever. The problem might be that it cannot backtrack. When AI generates output, there is no backspace key for it - it uses "No, but wait!" all over instead, which is very different to human output. Subagents and/or branching conversations are presented as the solution to this - if you can't backtrack, then branch off a conversation to explore multiple paths (discarding the ones that didn't pan out), but this is a fix in the harness not a fix in the model. It's also literally how we made chess-playing engines back in the 80s: recursive path exploration with a fixed depth. Humans don't exactly work that way either, AFAIK. So we have this uncanny valley of intelligence: it's some sort of intelligence, but not as we know it.
- ACCount37 25d agoReasoning is the first solution to that. Reason, write, reason, rewrite. Backtracking without backtracking.
- himata4113 25d agoDon't discount the capability of representing human-like intelligence with simple constructs. Give enough parameters and advanced enough training you can without a doubt create real intelligence. We've seen some of this already with "j-space" where llms have started to exhibit reasoning before it ever reaches the output head.
- scotty79 25d ago> it is still fundamentally a statistical model — an algorithmic construct — and does not possess any real intelligence or critical thought whatsoever How could I seriously repeat that prayer, when it builds things I wouldn't be able to build and solves problems that I wouldn't be able to solve? I would have to assume that nothing I did in 25 years for money required any intelligence or critical thought whatsoever and I have higher IQ than 99% of the population. You might be comfortable with that but I'm more comfortable with ascribing at least some intelligence and critical thought to AI.
- Gareth321 25d ago> The "something deeply wrong" part about AI, that even most technology enthusiasts evidently do not seem to grasp, is that it is still fundamentally a statistical model — an algorithmic construct Isn't this how human brains work? We're just large probabilistic neural inference machines. A network of neural weights guided by past training. To be honest I think the debate about what "sentience" is is inconsequential navel gazing. There are many different kinds of intelligence - even within humans. What matters is how useful that intelligence is as applied to solving real world problems. Like it or not, LLMs produce intelligence which is very, very useful for 1.5B people and rapidly growing. I think this ultimately boils down to the classical economic debate of marginal utility. There isn't an objective way to value a product or service. Each person decides for themselves what said product or service is worth based on their needs and preferences. Intelligence works the same way. We don't have the right to tell someone that their perception of the value of that intelligence is wrong. They alone determine that. One thing we can all agree on, is that the capability of this intelligence is expanding rapidly. In a few short years, we went from Will Smith spaghetti hands to full length movies and strikingly realistic images. For 60 years, passing the Turing Test was considered Star Trek level science fiction. Last year GPT 4.5 passed the Turing Test. AI is already being used to convince people over audio that they are real, and very soon, this will occur over video. I think people are being too dismissive of this intelligence. It doesn't need to be perfectly humanoid to be considered intelligent.
- pclowes 25d agoWe have actually little idea how human brains work. Every age thinks they know how they work, and then every subsequent age laughs at the previous age’s rudimentary understanding. We gave a Nobel prize to the psychiatrist for inventing a method to remove the frontal lobes of a brain through the nose in 1949. Lobotomies were performed through the 70s. We are likely doing similar if not subtler but worse things today (just one more pill bro). We still have no idea what we are doing when it comes to the brain.
- 3dddad 25d agoYes and in actuality we dont need to know how humans brain's work to make progress. Just like how airplanes don't flap their wings.
- goekjclo 25d agoAI discource is irrevocably fucked due to posts like these 2023-tier opinions.
- logicallee 25d agonot having any body, continuous sensory input (except ChatGPT-live gets streaming audio), episodic memory, on-the-job learning (live weight updates), any live feedback loops (like moving a motor updates proprioperception or turning physically changes what a streaming camera sees), really hurts these models' abilities to perform tasks of the kind you're waiting for. They are very good at instruction-following and you can teach it a new task that fits in its context and it'll learn it and do it. Go ahead, you can make up some new brand new ruleset or behavior and instruct it to follow it and it will. That's amazing. But it won't be any better at its new behavior after an hour or ten hours or ten days. It doesn't have the kind of adaptation that we expect. What it is able to do already is pretty amazing, but what it lacks is also a great hindrance to seeing its full capabilities. We just have to wait until research labs add these missing components.
- malux85 25d agoI am firmly realistic on the overhyped nature of AI, but which discoveries in the last 100 years are not "a composition of solutions humans have developed and documented elsewhere" ? Is that basically every new discovery? And under the strictest definition of novel and NOT falling into your composition of previous solutions what is that standard of proof to beat your criteria? Is a novel discovery not allowed to use English but must invent their own language? Must they invent their own math - these are hyperbole for illustration but I think its not far from that before you could just argue anything based off it is a composition of existing ideas