AI megathread

I've already watched and responded to that, @Valmar.

Even that marked section of the talk?

[Laird]

I'm not interested in arguing with you about a topic on which you're badly ignorant and uninformed. If you want help in becoming better informed though, then let me know.

@Sci, since you dodged my question, I assume that, like @Valmar, you have little to no personal experience with LLMs. That figures.

I just said it's getting integrated into the work space? 

How is that dodging your question?

Admittedly I can't help but wonder what the time you spent with LLMs is supposed to do to convince me the technology is doing something "truly remarkable".

I've made the necessary points, and I won't belabour them. I'll simply add some observations:

It seems that just as @sbu's metaphysical beliefs lead him to reflexively dismiss the significance (and the very existence) of very real phenomena like UFOs and psi given that they challenge those beliefs, so your (and @Valmar's) metaphysical beliefs lead you (both) to reflexively dismiss the significance (and the very existence) of the very real intelligence of LLMs given that it challenges those beliefs.

I find this quite curious given that to a meaningful extent, @nbtruthman and I share your metaphysical beliefs, yet both of us, having explored LLMs a little, are quite willing to affirm their remarkable intelligence (while of course at the same time acknowledging that it has certain - sometimes very strange and face-palm - failure modes).

Another word on top of "curious" is "disappointing". I expect better from you.

Why do you think LLMs would challenge my metaphysical beliefs?

Especially since you don't think the "intelligence" of LLMs means they are conscious?

Michael Levin thinks LLMs could be intelligent and this just reinforces his Platonic metaphysics. Donald Hoffman, an Idealist, also has expressed similar thinking in this regard.

Perhaps my questioning the "truly remarkable" nature of LLMs is less about metaphysics and more that there are sufficient grounds to disbelieve the hype...

[Laird]

I just said it's getting integrated into the work space?

That doesn't necessarily entail any personal exposure of your own, let alone interactions that meaningfully test capacity. Anyhow, the denial here seems insurmountable, so I won't continue to beat my head against a brick wall.

AI as Normal Technology: An alternative to the vision of AI as a potential superintelligence

by Arvind Narayanan & Sayash Kapoor

...To view AI as normal is not to understate its impact—even transformative, general-purpose technologies such as electricity and the internet are “normal” in our conception. But it is in contrast to both utopian and dystopian visions of the future of AI which have a common tendency to treat it akin to a separate species, a highly autonomous, potentially superintelligent entity. 

The statement “AI is normal technology” is three things: a description of current AI, a prediction about the foreseeable future of AI, and a prescription about how we should treat it. We view AI as a tool that we can and should remain in control of, and we argue that this goal does not require drastic policy interventions or technical breakthroughs. We do not think that viewing AI as a humanlike intelligence is currently accurate or useful for understanding its societal impacts, nor is it likely to be in our vision of the future. This is different from the question of whether it is helpful for an individual user to conceptualize a specific AI system as a tool as opposed to a human-like entity such as an intern, a co-worker, or a tutor.

The normal technology frame is about the relationship between technology and society. It rejects technological determinism, especially the notion of AI itself as an agent in determining its future. It is guided by lessons from past technological revolutions, such as the slow and uncertain nature of technology adoption and diffusion. It also emphasizes continuity between the past and the future trajectory of AI in terms of societal impact and the role of institutions in shaping this trajectory...

It just seems to me that skeptics like @sbu who have no problem believing a medium or NDEr will embellish or even lie for money and fame suddenly drop their skeptical sense when billions to trillions of dollars for AI companies is on the line. Now word prediction has miraculous properties, though of course instead of considering Platonism or Idealism he jumped to the idea the this - for unexplained reasons of course - supports the Physicalist faith.

Just to be clear. My own assessment of llms comes from daily professional usage of premium models (not something you can access for free) and not from any “marketing” from the AI companies.

It’s correct that I think their workings can be explained entirely in computational terms without considering any kind of idealism as an underlying feature of reality.

Just to be clear. My own assessment of llms comes from daily professional usage of premium models (not something you can access for free) and not from any “marketing” from the AI companies.

Can I ask how that is any different from having faith by, say, reading the Bible religiously because you believe it has the answers? You may not be consciously believing in LLM company marketing, but LLM algorithms are designed to keep you hooked on them ~ attached to using them so you will continue giving the LLM company money. The LLM algorithm therefore is designed to do anything to convince you to keep using it for this, that and other things. To keep you coming back to it. At this point, I feel like I need to compare it to opiates...

It’s correct that I think their workings can be explained entirely in computational terms without considering any kind of idealism as an underlying feature of reality.

I mean... yes? LLMs are purely algorithmic ~ there is nothing but the algorithm crunching weighted tokens to decide the next most probable token in the current context.

An algorithm can be impressively designed by intelligent conscious human programmers ~ but that does not make the algorithm in itself "intelligent" or conscious or what-have-you.

[Laird]

"I have direct, daily, professional experience with this."

"Oh, so you're just taking it on faith."

🤦‍♂️

"I have direct, daily, professional experience with this."

"Oh, so you're just taking it on faith."

🤦‍♂️

What exactly am I taking on faith? We know how the inference process works. Where in that process do you see anything non-physical occurring?

[Laird]

What does that mean?

It was a paraphrase of your post and Valmar's response, followed in turn by my response.