These statements are correct, but the premise is not. I also delight in the results obtainable with LLM data aggregators. However, calling them intelligent is offensive and dangerous. Allowing them to use first person pronouns is idiotic and murderous, if not by intention, then in effect.
These statements are correct, but the premise is not. I also delight in the results obtainable with LLM data aggregators. However, calling them intelligent is offensive and dangerous. Allowing them to use first person pronouns is idiotic and murderous, if not by intention, then in effect.
Well that is why it is called "artificial" intelligence or (the simpler versions) Machine Learning. Certainly LLM models are essentially large scale Plagiarisers. But lets face it so is Kamala. One has to have a peculiarly small definition for the word intelligence to deny it to say ChatGPT.
If ChatGPT is not intelligent, one has to be incredibly offensive to human beings instead.
There is no intelligence in a machine. A computer is just an electronic circuit doing digital math per its machine code instruction set.
The fact that you mistake speed for intelligence is exactly why calling a simulation of intelligence intelligent is an offense and a danger. Ever try to argue with a phone menu? So-called AI logic is the same IF-THEN-ELSE decision tree with lots more IFs, once you get down to the transistors on the chips. TheyтАЩre giving the damn things guns, brother.
Still, AI logic is not a simple decision tree (well some kinds of Machine learning are, but not all of them). For a start if you ask the same question twice you will get 2 different answers.
In practice asking Chat GPT for help in an office will get you a much better answer than asking the person sitting next to you 9 times out of 10. For my money (or language) that makes Chat GPT more intelligent that the guy sitting next to me (or me for that matter).
Now if you feel a need to re-define "Intelligence" to something much more specific that sounds to me you are worried more about Humans than intelligence.
In grade school, I got better answers from the Encyclopedia Britannica than I got from my teachers, but ascribed intelligence to its authors, not its paper and ink.
And who wrote Encyclopedia Britannica? Did they get any credit for that.
Maybe we should do some kind of Hidden Figures movie on that story.
(or is this some kind of Intelligent Design concept where you are really making a case for God versus Emergence from complex systems - like life or ai?)
These statements are correct, but the premise is not. I also delight in the results obtainable with LLM data aggregators. However, calling them intelligent is offensive and dangerous. Allowing them to use first person pronouns is idiotic and murderous, if not by intention, then in effect.
Well that is why it is called "artificial" intelligence or (the simpler versions) Machine Learning. Certainly LLM models are essentially large scale Plagiarisers. But lets face it so is Kamala. One has to have a peculiarly small definition for the word intelligence to deny it to say ChatGPT.
If ChatGPT is not intelligent, one has to be incredibly offensive to human beings instead.
There is no intelligence in a machine. A computer is just an electronic circuit doing digital math per its machine code instruction set.
The fact that you mistake speed for intelligence is exactly why calling a simulation of intelligence intelligent is an offense and a danger. Ever try to argue with a phone menu? So-called AI logic is the same IF-THEN-ELSE decision tree with lots more IFs, once you get down to the transistors on the chips. TheyтАЩre giving the damn things guns, brother.
You seem to be taking this personally.
Still, AI logic is not a simple decision tree (well some kinds of Machine learning are, but not all of them). For a start if you ask the same question twice you will get 2 different answers.
In practice asking Chat GPT for help in an office will get you a much better answer than asking the person sitting next to you 9 times out of 10. For my money (or language) that makes Chat GPT more intelligent that the guy sitting next to me (or me for that matter).
Now if you feel a need to re-define "Intelligence" to something much more specific that sounds to me you are worried more about Humans than intelligence.
In grade school, I got better answers from the Encyclopedia Britannica than I got from my teachers, but ascribed intelligence to its authors, not its paper and ink.
And who wrote Encyclopedia Britannica? Did they get any credit for that.
Maybe we should do some kind of Hidden Figures movie on that story.
(or is this some kind of Intelligent Design concept where you are really making a case for God versus Emergence from complex systems - like life or ai?)