Whatever your view on AI and data usage, this is not an acceptable reason to arrest someone. I do view that we are taking just brute force too far, we need to pause and reconsider energy usage and waste and refocus on the algorithms to be more efficient first. Our focus should not just be the Jeremy Clarkson method of more power.
Why should AI enthusiasts expect logical reasoning?
AI "reasoning" is the model babbling to itself, using statistically likely sequences of words that appear in the training data. Of course that will often produce valid chains of logic, but not because it in any way understands the principle behind it. It is ONLY modelling LANGUAGE, not any of the mental processes that guide the use of language in humans (and which might even exist in animals not capable of language).
When asked to carefully check itself, it might spot errors because their structure matches common examples of fallacies, or it might not, and instead insert some further bullshit like "Assumption Verified — 100% correct! It all checks out [insert some emojis here]". That then becomes part of its context, and further boosts its unfounded confidence.
Counterpoint, AI is amazing and I can't wait for it to replace human jobs.
I joke that chat GPT is my child's primary pediatrician. It's not perfect but humans aren't either and it makes fewer mistakes than the Clinic and available in seconds 24 hours a day.
Whatever your view on AI and data usage, this is not an acceptable reason to arrest someone. I do view that we are taking just brute force too far, we need to pause and reconsider energy usage and waste and refocus on the algorithms to be more efficient first. Our focus should not just be the Jeremy Clarkson method of more power.
Fact is, there is too much money involved.
Fact is, protesting by itself won't do much.
It's all fun and games when you're generating images or automcompleting code.
But this is how it is in the real world. AI is a sickening plague.
Why are AI critics so lazy? Why does this have to be treated as a matter of faith rather than something to be logically reasoned about?
Why should AI enthusiasts expect logical reasoning?
AI "reasoning" is the model babbling to itself, using statistically likely sequences of words that appear in the training data. Of course that will often produce valid chains of logic, but not because it in any way understands the principle behind it. It is ONLY modelling LANGUAGE, not any of the mental processes that guide the use of language in humans (and which might even exist in animals not capable of language).
When asked to carefully check itself, it might spot errors because their structure matches common examples of fallacies, or it might not, and instead insert some further bullshit like "Assumption Verified — 100% correct! It all checks out [insert some emojis here]". That then becomes part of its context, and further boosts its unfounded confidence.
Oh no, you're back. I was hoping you were banned for good. Not looking forward to more of your unhinged rants.
Pot kettle. His post is more interesting than yours.
>Pot kettle.
Idiot dumb.
Counterpoint, AI is amazing and I can't wait for it to replace human jobs.
I joke that chat GPT is my child's primary pediatrician. It's not perfect but humans aren't either and it makes fewer mistakes than the Clinic and available in seconds 24 hours a day.
True