- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
It’s fun to say that artificial intelligence is fake and sucks — but evidence is mounting that it’s real and dangerous
It’s fun to say that artificial intelligence is fake and sucks — but evidence is mounting that it’s real and dangerous
I think that’s pretty much settled by now. Yes, it will transform the world. And no, the current LLMs won’t ever achieve superintelligence. They have some severe limitations by design. And even worse, we’re already putting in more and more data and compute into training, for less and less gain. It seems we could approach a limit soon. I’d say it’s ruled out that the current approach will extend to human-level or even superintelligence territory.
Is super-intellignence smarter than all humans? I think where we stand now, LLMs are already smarter than the average human while lagging behind experts w/ specialized knowledge, no?
Source: https://trackingai.org/IQ
Isn’t super intelligent more the ability to think so far beyond human limitations that it might as well be magic. The classic example being inventing faster than light drive.
Simply being very intelligent makes it more of an expert system than a super intelligence.
I think superintelligence means smarter than the (single) most intelligent human.
I’ve read these claims, but I’m not convinced. I tested all the ChatGPTs etc, let them write emails for me, summarize, program some software… It’s way faster at generating text/images than me, but I’m sure I’m 40 IQ points more intelligent. Plus it’s kind of narrow what it can do at all. ChatGPT can’t even make me a sandwich or bring coffe. Et cetera. So any comparison with a human has to be on a very small set of tasks anyways, for AI to compete at all.
Well it doesn’t have physical access to reality
Which is a severe limitation, isn’t it? First of all it can’t do 99% of what I can do. But I’d also attribute things like being handy to intelligence. And it can’t be handy, since it has no hands. Same for sports/athletics, driving a race car which is at least a learned skill. And it has no sense if time passing. Or which hand movements are part of a process that it has read about. (Operating a coffe machine.) So I’d argue it’s some kind of “book-smart” but not smart in the same way someone is, who actually experienced something.
It’s a bit philosophical. But I’m not sure about distinguishing intelligence and being skillful. If it’s enough to have theoretical knowledge, without the ability to apply it… Wouldn’t an encyclopedia or Wikipedia also be superintelligent? I mean they sure store a lot of knowledge, they just can’t do anything with it, since they’re a book or website…
So I’d say intelligence has something to do with applying things, which ChatGPT can’t in a lot of ways.
Ultimately I think this all goes together. But I think it’s currently debated whether you need a body to become intelligent or sentient or anything. I just think intelligence isn’t a very useful concept if you don’t need to be able to apply it to tasks. But I’m sure we’ll get to see the merge of robotics and AI in the next years/decades. And that’ll make this intelligence less narrow.