Transcript

Title text: This is how you all fucking sound

[A smug tech bro wearing a sideways cap, watch, chain around his neck stands in front of a data center by a lake with dead fish. A smoke stack blows pollution into the air]

Tech bro: AI is already here, there’s no going back.

[A smug man in a suit with cigarette in hand stands in a restaurant while two disgruntled diners cough from the smoke]

Suit: Smoking indoors is already here, there’s no going back.

[A smug man in a top hat and suit stands in a factory with two sad and dirty children]

Hat: Child labor is already here, there’s no going back.

[A smug plantation owner stands in front of a field with with two angry slaves]

Plantation owner: The Atlantic Slave trade is already here, there’s no going back.

Still Vreni on Bluesky

    • dual_sport_dork 🐧🗡️@lemmy.worldEnglish
      422·
      15 hours ago

      But LLMs are not the path to the final state of AI, either. And that’s assuming only if — and this is a very big “if” — a true general artificial intelligence can even be created using traditional silicon computing methods in the first place. Blithely assuming that it can be is really rather asking past the sale.

      • venusaur@lemmy.world
        1·
        2 hours ago

        Then you’re well aware of the massive power that AGI will bring to any nation that can harness it. And no, LLMs alone are not the path, and possibly not the path at all.

      • Dagnet@lemmy.world
        182·
        14 hours ago

        Yep, by design LLM cannot become ‘inteligent’, you can only make it more believable but it’s still copying humans not really thinking by itself. No amount of development or money invested will change that, it’s not a pokemon it won’t just evolve into something different one day.

        • Grail@multiverse.soulism.netEnglish
          1·
          12 minutes ago

          I think LLMs are intelligent. They’re at least as intelligent as My pocket calculator, and My calculator is intelligent.

          I think you’re setting the bar too low. A tiny amount of intelligence is super easy to program.

        • dual_sport_dork 🐧🗡️@lemmy.worldEnglish
          201·
          14 hours ago

          And it’s worth reiterating, the current crop of generative “AI” is incapable of producing anything new or novel. All it can do is reassemble existing strings, tokens, and patterns in slightly different ways. Innovation can never come from such a machine. That will have to come from a human.

          The current push is the notion that “hyperscaling,” i.e. throwing even more hardware and space and power and money at the same concept, will magically make it something it isn’t. Obviously that’s not going to work. It’ll allow grifters to make a ton of money over it, though!

          • pinball_wizard@lemmy.zip
            6·
            12 hours ago

            Obviously that’s not going to work. It’ll allow grifters to make a ton of money over it, though!

            Well said.

            • dual_sport_dork 🐧🗡️@lemmy.worldEnglish
              41·
              8 hours ago

              From TFA:

              The AI did not prove that its approach is the best anyone can do, though. In fact, mathematician Will Sawin has already improved upon the AI’s grid.

              OpenAI privately contacted Litt, Sawin, Gowers and a number of other mathematicians to verify the LLM’s proof. Together (and without the company’s direct involvement), they wrote up their individual takeaways. (No external experts have seen the AI’s original output, however—just an edited version of its train of thought.)

              What stood out, they said, was the AI’s preternatural patience and focus.

              …

              “AIs have an edge: It’s not just that they can try all known methods,” says Jacob Tsimerman, a mathematician at the University of Toronto, who was not involved in the work but was part of the companion paper solicited by OpenAI. “They can play for longer and in more treacherous waters than mathematicians without getting overwhelmed.”

              …

              The mathematical tools the AI used here are not novel, although their application in this domain appears to be. “The model did not invent something fundamentally new that nobody saw coming,” says Sébastien Bubeck, a mathematician leading OpenAI’s mathematical explorations. “It just executed like an amazing mathematician.”

              So, it’s a monkeys-on-typewriters situation with the computer able to try and reject the hammering of who knows how many square pegs into round holes until it finally arrives at a workable conclusion, which a human has already bested. And we’re not allowed to see its homework.

              This is categorically failing to set the world on fire, except possibly in the literal sense.

              • AwesomeLowlander@sh.itjust.works
                2·
                7 hours ago

                After 80 years of fruitless struggle by human mathematicians, a major geometry conjecture has at last been solved—via a straightforward query to a chatbot.

                There’s value having tedious work done by AI so it can provide inspiration to real people, which is exactly what happened in this case.

                So, it’s a monkeys-on-typewriters situation with the computer able to try and reject the hammering of who knows how many square pegs into round holes until it finally arrives at a workable conclusion, which a human has already bested.

                Gee, sounds like it’s enabling people! The horror.

                This is categorically failing to set the world on fire,

                Things can be useful in the right context without setting the world on fire.

      • SystemDisc@feddit.orgEnglish
        109·
        13 hours ago

        Such a fallacy. Anything that falls under the umbrella of machine learning will contribute to future AI. We certainly won’t improve LLMs such that they become AGI, but all of it contributes.

        And, whether or not future AI even uses traditional silicon computing is also irrelevant.

        What matters is improved understanding of mathematics, neurons, chemistry, electronics, etc. That all happens each step of the way, even if the next technology is completely different.

        • JcbAzPx@lemmy.worldEnglish
          114·
          12 hours ago

          What matters is improved understanding of mathematics, neurons, chemistry, electronics, etc.

          All of which have absolutely nothing to do with what we are currently calling AI.

          • SystemDisc@feddit.orgEnglish
            11·
            9 hours ago

            Doing with it, sure, but the creation of LLMs, and the algorithms behind them, especially the training, are what I’m talking about. It’s a lot of very impressive, complicated math

            I think it’s pretty pathetic that “fuck AI” has become the trendy, cool thing. It really misses the mark. It should be fuck capitalism and the sociopathic CEOs abusing AI and shoving it down our throats. AI is not the problem.

            • AnyOldName3@lemmy.world
              11·
              8 hours ago

              It’s actually just a lot of pretty simple maths from decades ago, but it’s a lot of it. The big changes in those decades have been the feasibility of doing enough of that simple maths to achieve anything useful, and domain-specific network architecture stuff that’s rarely transferable, e.g. LLMs are possible because of the invention of the transformer architecture in 2017, and that’s also turned out to be useful for a few things like image generation and protein folding simulation, but not for all neural network based techniques, and then most of the things that have made successive LLMs better haven’t also been useful for the few other transformer-architecture-based neural networks. Most not-LLM AI isn’t going to be meaningfully easier to create than it would have been had the world got bored after GPT-2 and we’d only focussed on doing image and video generation.

              • pfried@reddthat.com
                2·
                6 hours ago

                Transformer is useful for damn near anything. At the end of the day, what we consider intelligence is the ability to predict what comes next, whether that is what our senses will tell us next or what the next hypothesis to test should be based on the data we have seen so far.