Don’t get me wrong, I don’t buy his story for a second, but dear God, your whole post exposes ignorance of how couples work, and reeks of “hes the man of the house and should take control.”

I’ve been with my wife for over 20 years. We don’t make sure everything the other does we agree with, and we don’t constantly keep tabs on what the other is doing. Claiming that it speaks poorly of him because he doesn’t keep some kind of totalitarian eye on his wife is kind of ironic in a comments section of this article.

Hard to say. You claim they are incapable of understanding, which is why they can’t be fluent. however, really, the whole argument boils down to whether they are capable of understanding. You just state that as if it’s established fact, and I believe that’s an open question at this point.

So whether it is circular depends on why you think they are incapable of understanding. If it’s like the other poster, and it’s because that’s a human(ish) only trait, and they aren’t human…then yes.

You might agree with the conclusion, and the conclusion might even be correct, but the poster effectively argued ‘only humans can be fluent, and it’s not a human so it isn’t fluent’ and that is absolutely circular logic.

An LLM is a static model created through exposure to lots and lots of text. It is trained and then used. To add to the model requires an offline training process, which produces a new version of the model that can then be interacted with.

But this is a deliberate decision, not an inherent limitation. The model could get feedback from the outside world, in fact this is how it’s trained (well, data is fed back into the model to update it). Of course we are limiting it to words, rather than a whole slew of inputs that a human gets. But keep in mind we have things like music and image generation AI as well. So it’s not like it can’t be also be trained on these things. Again, deliberate decision rather than inherent limitation.

We both even agree it’s true that it can learn from interacting with the world, you just insist that because it isn’t persisting, that doesn’t actually count. But it does persist, just not the the new inputs from users. And this is done deliberately to protect the models from what would inevitably happen. That being said, it’s also been fed arguably more input than a human would get in their whole life, just condescended into a much smaller period of time. So if it’s “total input” then the AI is going to win, hands down.

You seem to have ignored the preceding sentence: “LLMs are sophisticated word generators.”

I’m not ignoring this. I understand that it’s the whole argument, it gets repeated around here enough. Just saying it doesn’t make it true, however. It may be true, again I’m not sure, but simply stating and saying “full stop” doesn’t amount to a convincing argument.

They simply do not think, much less understand.

It’s not as open and shut as you wish it to be. If anyone is ignoring anything here, it’s you ignoring the fact that it went from basically just, as you said, randomly stacking objects it was told to stack stably, to actually doing so in a way that could work and describing why you would do it that way. Additionally there is another case where they asked chat gpt4 to draw a unicorn using an obscure programming language. And you know what? It did it. It was rudimentary, but it was clearly a unicorn. This is something that wasn’t trained on images at all. They even messed with the code, turning the unicorn around, removing the horn, fed it back in, and then asked it to replace the horn, and it put it back on correctly. It seemed to understand not only what an unicorn looked like, but what was the horn and where it should go when it was removed.

So to say it just can “generate more words” is something you can accuse us of as well, or possibly even just overly reductive of what it’s capable of even now.

But often, as the hallucination problem shows, in ways that are completely useless and even harmful.

There are all kinds of problems with human memory, where we imagine things all of the time. You’ve ever taken acid? If so, you would see how unreliable our brains are at always interpreting reality. And you want to really trip? Eye witness testimony is basically garbage. I exaggerate a bit, but there are so many flaws with it with people remembering things that didn’t happen, and it’s so easy to create false memories, that it’s not as convincing as it should be. Hell, it can even be harmful by convicting an innocent person.

Every short coming you’ve used to claim AI isn’t real thinking is something shared with us. It might just be inherent to intelligence to be wrong sometimes.

The article makes a pretty convincing argument that the right wing spin sphere is already out in full force trying to downplay the debates.

They have to be either trained with new data or their internal structure has to be improved. It’s an offline process, meaning they don’t learn through chat sessions we have with them (if you open a new session it will have forgotten what you told it in a previous session), and they can’t learn through any kind of self-directed research process like a human can.

Most human training is done through the guidance of another, additionally, most of this is training is done through an automated process where some computer is just churning through data. And while you are correct that the context does not exist from one session to the next, you can in fact teach it something and it will maintain it during the session. It’s just like moving to a new session is like talking to completely different person, and you’re basically arguing “well, I explained this one thing to another human, and this human doesn’t know it. . .so how can you claim it’s thinking?” And just imagine the disaster that would happen if you would just allow it to be trained by anyone on the web. It would be spitting out memes, racism, and right wing propaganda within days. lol

They don’t think or understand in any way, full stop.

I just gave you an example where this appears to be untrue. There is something that looks like understanding going on. Maybe it’s not, I’m not claiming to know, but I have not seen a convincing argument as to why. Saying “full stop” instead of an actual argument as to why just indicates to me that you are really saying “stop thinking.” And I apologize but that’s not how I roll.

https://www.businessinsider.com/chatgpt-open-ai-balancing-task-convinced-microsoft-agi-closer-2023-5

This is circular logic: only humans can be fluent, so the models can’t be fluent because they aren’t human.

And it’s universally upvoted…in response to an ais getting things wrong so they can’t be doing anything but hallucinating.

And will you learn from this? Nope. I’ll just be down voted and shouted at.

they do not understand why those things are true.

Some researchers compared the results of questions between chat gpt 3 and 4. One of the questions was about stacking items in a stable way. Chat gpt 3 just, in line with what you are saying about “without understanding”, listed the items saying to place them one on top of each other. No way it would have worked.

Chat gpt 4, however, said that you should put the book down first, put the eggs in a 3 x 3 grid on top of the book, trap them in a way with a laptop so they don’t roll around, and then put the bottle on top of the laptop standing up, and then balance the nail on the top of it…even noting you have to put the flat end of the nail down. This sounds a lot like understanding to me and not just rolling the dice hoping to be correct.

Yes, AI confidently gets stuff wrong. But let’s all note that there is a whole subreddit dedicated to people being confidently wrong. One doesn’t need to go any further than Lemmy to see people confidently claiming to know the truth about shit they should know is outside of their actual knowledge. We’re all guilty of this. Including refusing to learn when we are wrong. Additionally, the argument that they can’t learn doesn’t make sense because models have definitely become better.

Now I’m not saying ai is conscious, I really don’t know, but all of your shortcomings you’ve listed humans are guilty of too. So to use it as examples as to why it’s always just a hallucination, or that our thoughts are not, doesn’t seem to hold much water to me.

I responded literally directly to what was said by pointing out that article notes that the gag order includes a ban on him directing other people to speak for him.

And I didn’t actually address it? How does one even reason themselves into such a ridiculously mindless position?

I figured it was just some turn of phrase I had never heard before.

If you just rtfa you would see that he’s also barred from directing a third party to say something.

But, nah, reading and educating yourself takes precious time away from being outraged. Hell, sometimes it makes it even harder to find a reason to be outraged.

The guy volunteered for it, knowing the risk, and calls it a luxury that he uses all the time and has helped him “reconnect with the world.”

Don’t let your justified hatred of musk blind you to reality.

You truly are a genius to realize that developing new technologies often encounter problems and it doesn’t always go smoothly.

I think something got lost in the shuffle here. The top level comment of this chain was (which is also what the article is about):

imho incest should only be outlawed because of the risk of gene defects during pregnancy. so while nasty I dont think a hanky panky from your first cousin should be outlawed

So in my mind it was always about whether or not first cousins fall into the realm of incest and/or inbreeding. We both agree that there is probably a instinctual component to the rejection of incest. I think that, just like with the rejection of homosexuality, the aversion to first cousins because they’re incestual is also conditioned, which is why it shouldn’t be outlawed. Although I could be convinced otherwise.

I have a visceral, what I think is instinctual, revulsion at the concept of incest.

Incest is, by definition, sexual relations between people too closely related. The question here is whether or not first cousins should count as incest.

But next time you debate with someone opposed to homosexuality, ask yourself if they think their revulsion to it is a visceral, instinctual response.

The majority of cases of incest involve sexual abuse and frequently pedophilia.

Well, I’m really not comparing the two, I’m comparing the arguments. But that being said, where are you coming up with the claim that the majority of first cousin sexual attraction is pedophilia or sexual abuse?

Honestly, this reads like someone dealing with the cognitive dissonance of trying to maintain that they believe that adults should be able to have consensual relations with each other, but at the same time supporting laws that outlaw something they’ve been conditioned to believe is icky.

It’s sounds nearly identical to the “we can’t allow gay relationships because they’re recruiting kids!”

No, it’s just stealing stuff. I’m a shameless pirate, but stop pretending that this is some noble resistance. The reality is that its a luxury someone is selling for a price, and we don’t want to pay the price, so we steal it. You could always just not consume it. That would be the noble move.

They’re assholes so I just don’t give a fuck.