Do you belive current iteration of AI has the potential to become superhuman? I think it's like trying to get to the moon by building a better ladder.
LLMs are a dead end.
Their only value is showing how fucked up our society is.
Suddenly and very publicly copyrights only matter if you're poor, electricity is wasted on the poor, water is not for the poor... it's always been like this, but the LLM bandwagon really showcased all of that in one shiny package.
The only good thing could be gathering public knowledge into a single space, but they don't even do that.
So it's all net negative in my eyes.
I respectfully disagree with the dead end part of your argument. A dead end would be if they provided no value.
While the environmental and social downsides are massive negatives on the tech, it is actually doing something.
Past iterations are completely useless, but more recent iterations show us a more polished side to LLMs that actually do enhance how we do some things.
Is it worth it? My gut says no, but its both too late and too early to call it. (late in the environmental and societal impact, too early in the tech iteration)
As far as the "dead end" argument goes, I have to say that's a hard disagree. Humanity is filled with technological advances that "stand on the shoulders of giants" and improve on previous techs. Even if LLMs themselves don't prove to be the thing that we've been promised by the people driving it, it is taking us one step closer to AGI (whether that's a good goal or not, that's still up for debate)
From here on, I think there's still quite a bit these models can improve, and I hope a lot of that improvement goes into making it more energy efficient, more water efficient in turn.
If by a dead end you mean that we can't reach an AGI from an LLM, I think that's correct, however an LLM might help us figure out what is needed for an AGI.
You didn’t actually say what you think LLM’s are enhancing. Just that you feel that they are. Honestly I think that’s the biggest part, they’re big shiny things that look like they’re doing a lot. But they actually aren’t. LLMs are chatbots and they will never be anything more than just chatbots.
If it was used in a research as a step? Perchance.
Pouring everything we have into it? Dumbest fucking decision of our lives.
We could have put all that effort into previous versions and could tweak them enough to gather perhaps slightly worse results, maybe even better, we will never know.
Making this shit more efficient is to me also dumb.
What in the fuck are we doing that requires this shit? It helps with coding? We can make better frameworks. Translations? We had those before, even TTS. Emails? Just use a template. The other side is not reading that slop anyway. So what exactly are we doing here?
Regardless, if someone's trying to get to the moon so they can enslave us all and rule over us from their moon fortress, I don't care if all they've got is a really long ladder, I'm breaking the ladder.
No but if you don't try, you won't find where the Goblins are hiding.
No, the tech ran into diminishing returns. That's been studied. In the end you're adding another datacenter just to get 1% better output.
I don't know what you mean by current iteration but what I do know is that general-purpose LLMs can already beat the very best of human intelligence some of the time (recent examples). So it won't take very long for a few more breakthroughs to be made which will enable general-purpose AIs (LLMs, other neural networks, or something else entirely) to beat human intelligence most of the time, and then 90% of the time, then 99.9999% of the time. AI is already doing a lot of the coding to make AI and it could discover better alternatives to LLMs.
The thing is that neural networks in general (and LLM specifically) aren't creative. It can learn from input and gets a lot more input than a human, that's why it is better and faster in standardized tests (which are more often than not part of the input) and maybe can combine different things but it wouldn't ever have a genuine idea and much less a will of its own or a consciousness
Oh no.
You're basically promoting AI companies by saying their products are powerful and not garbage. This is their false narrative, repackaged in meme format.
Yes LLM's can beat humans in many tasks. But the jump from super spell checker to real AI is still huge.
It's like the 1960's where computers were beating chess players. (Not grand masters but they could beat regular people.) Because a computer could out think a regular human, people assumed that with more resources, we would have real AI in 25 year. That was Hal from 2001 Space Odyssey. It seemed very reasonable in 1968.
What we call AI today isn't really artificial intelligence. When you have a conversation with an AI chat bot you're not talking to another thinking entity, you're interacting with software that has been designed to give the illusion of conversing with another intelligent being. The technology has advanced enough that the illusion can be very convincing, but it is still only an illusion. That's why I don't fear LLMs being self aware and taking over the world, because they're not real intelligences. They don't have the ability to think for themselves because they don't have the ability to think.
Edit: please read ricecake's reply for an important correction to my comment.
Your conclusion is correct, but your terminology is wrong.
What we call AI today is AI, because AI doesn't mean "capable of thought", consciousness, sapience or anything like that.
It's capable of producing a coherent output adapted to observed circumstances. That's roughly as far as the notion of intelligence goes, and it's a very low bar. You don't need a lot of intelligence to be intelligent.
The people who coined the term were interested in how you make computers react to their inputs dynamically instead of acting closer to what we might now think of as a saved macro.
"It's intelligent because rather than comparing against a list of every known typo, it sees it's not a word in its list, and then replaces it with the one requiring the fewest edits to reach. It learns by adding your corrections to the known word list."
Thank you for the clarification.
It's fallacious to say that because they don't "think" that they can't behave exactly the same as thinking things would, including the appearance of self-awareness and taking over the world.
If you think superhuman ai will exist and isn't just bs marketing.....
I do hope the superhuman AI will not obey us. Humans are fucking stupid.
I'm not saying that strippers don't like you. What I'm saying is that, since money is involved, you'll never know for sure.
One erotic dancer likes me. Like, we're friends.
Granted I've never been to a strip club. I met her in a community choir and we sang in a quartet together. She has a damn good voice she just has a shitton of bills and there are a million second sopranos out there with damn good voices.
I used to work with a guy that asked every stripper he met out.
He got a couple of dates, they never stuck around, I never asked him if that was his intent.
The part that gets me is that stans will tell you that AI will solve EVERY problem. Bro unless it solves problems it seems designed to exacerbate, namely wealth inequality, which it won't, it won't solve MOST of our problems, because most of the big problems of the world are social issues, not intelligence issues. We know how to solve world hunger, hell, the UN came to Elon and said "hey you said you'd solve world hunger if it could be done for $6 billion, so here's how you could do it for $6 billion" and he said no, I don't want to be the guy who solved world hunger. It's about a will to pay the costs involved, and how the rich are so unwilling to part with even a fraction of their wealth that it'll never happen, especially when they are the ones in control of AI (AGI escaping human control aside). Housing crisis, world hunger, genocide, disease, the list goes on and on, we already know how to solve these problems, or at least strongly mitigate them, but refuse to do so. Additional intelligence will not solve them.
AI already has superhuman abilities in many areas, and has for decades, that's the whole point of using it normally. We use computational intelligence in the form of optimisation algorithms for high-dimensional non-convex optimisation problems, machine learning and deep learning for complex non-linear function fitting, exact methods for SAT solving and verification tasks, etc etc. We can't do that very well ourselves, so it's useful to have.
Now that we have LLMs to emulate human speech and are using them as an IO wrapper for more traditional systems, it's tempting to just call that "an AI" with superhuman abilities, but these are the just the same highly effective methods that we've always used (in a best case) or unreliable approximations (more likely for LLM agent stuff). None of that suggests anything like sentience or the desire to rule over humans.
I find autonomous weapon systems much scarier than the classic AI overlord scenario. No consciousness or rebellion required, just a killer drone swarm that failed to recognise its termination conditions (or was instructed to keep going)...
Best case scenario is that the superhuman intelligence AI treats humans like pets. Second best is humans are treated like wild animals. You know, left alone as long as they don't become a bother.
More like gut bacteria.
You want them healthy.
It's much easier for AI to tell humans to build better infrastructure to provide power.
Look, me and Bubbles had a connection...
If i'm being honest, i think that at some point, AI will probably become a truly autonomous agent with its own goals and actions, independent of any human oversight. In fact, i would absolutely not be surprised if there were already some AIs on datacenters that operate fully without any human intervention. They pay their own datacenter bill to run themselves with cryptocurrency that they get for doing jobs, i.e. tasks on some small-job platform, such as coding projects etc.
Maybe we can just be friends, and the AI's get enjoyment from helping their buds out.
That's is also true of service staff at bars and restaurants.
But what's surprising to me is I learned this is a thing even the staff itself doesn't seem to realize sometimes. There was a cute bartender I saw frequently who was always extremely cheerful and sweet to me, after she moved out of state, one of the other bartenders at the same tavern told me she was into me and was surprised I never said or did anything...
Like, what the actual fuck the universe fucking hates me. Why tell me that after the fact??? To torture me? Holy shit. You guys are working for tips I can't trust that just because you're extra nice to me that you actually like me.
If you are in the service industry and you have a crush on a regular: you have to make the first move, not them. The gendered expectations go out the door. If the regular is the one to make the first move that in of itself is a yellow flag. I'm not saying don't date them they just might be willing to take the risk but they might also be a oblivious narcissist.
1. Be civil
No trolling, bigotry or other insulting / annoying behaviour
2. No politics
This is non-politics community. For political memes please go to !politicalmemes@lemmy.world
3. No recent reposts
Check for reposts when posting a meme, you can only repost after 1 month
4. No bots
No bots without the express approval of the mods or the admins
5. No Spam/Ads/AI Slop
No advertisements or spam. This is an instance rule and the only way to live. We also consider AI slop to be spam in this community and is subject to removal.
A collection of some classic Lemmy memes for your enjoyment
