• Geograph6@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    People talk about OpenAI as if its some utopian saviour that’s going to revolutionise society. When in reality its a large corporation flooding the internet with terrible low-quality content using machine learning models that have existed for years. And the fields it is “automating” are creative ones that specifically require a human touch, like art and writing. Language learning models and image generation isn’t going to improve anything. They’re not “AI” and they never will be. Hopefully when AI does exist and does start automating everything we’ll have a better economic system though :D

    • fiasco@possumpat.io
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      The thing that amazes me the most about AI Discourse is, we all learned in Theory of Computation that general AI is impossible. My best guess is that people with a CS degree who believe in AI slept through all their classes.

      • argv_minus_one@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        We can simulate all manner of physics using a computer, but we can’t simulate a brain using a computer? I’m having a real hard time believing that. Brains aren’t magic.

      • qfe0@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        The existence of natural intelligence is the proof that artificial intelligence is possible.

      • leonardo_arachoo@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        we all learned in Theory of Computation that general AI is impossible.

        I strongly suspect it is you who has misunderstood your CS courses. Can you provide some concrete evidence for why general AI is impossible?

        • fiasco@possumpat.io
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          Evidence, not really, but that’s kind of meaningless here since we’re talking theory of computation. It’s a direct consequence of the undecidability of the halting problem. Mathematical analysis of loops cannot be done because loops, in general, don’t take on any particular value; if they did, then the halting problem would be decidable. Given that writing a computer program requires an exact specification, which cannot be provided for the general analysis of computer programs, general AI trips and falls at the very first hurdle: being able to write other computer programs. Which should be a simple task, compared to the other things people expect of it.

          Yes there’s more complexity here, what about compiler optimization or Rust’s borrow checker? which I don’t care to get into at the moment; suffice it to say, those only operate on certain special conditions. To posit general AI, you need to think bigger than basic block instruction reordering.

          This stuff should all be obvious, but here we are.

          • leonardo_arachoo@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Given that humans can write computer programs, how can you argue that the undecidability of the halting problem stops intelligent agents from being able to write computer programs?

            I don’t understand what you mean about the borrow checker in Rust or block instruction reordering. These are certainly not attempts at AI or AGI.

            What exactly does AGI mean to you?

            This stuff should all be obvious, but here we are.

            This is not necessary. Please don’t reply if you can’t resist the temptation to call people who disagree with you stupid.

            • fiasco@possumpat.io
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              1 year ago

              This is proof of one thing: that our brains are nothing like digital computers as laid out by Turing and Church.

              What I mean about compilers is, compiler optimizations are only valid if a particular bit of code rewriting does exactly the same thing under all conditions as what the human wrote. This is chiefly only possible if the code in question doesn’t include any branches (if, loops, function calls). A section of code with no branches is called a basic block. Rust is special because it harshly constrains the kinds of programs you can write: another consequence of the halting problem is that, in general, you can’t track pointer aliasing outside a basic block, but the Rust program constraints do make this possible. It just foists the intellectual load onto the programmer. This is also why Rust is far and away my favorite language; I respect the boldness of this play, and the benefits far outweigh the drawbacks.

              To me, general AI means a computer program having at least the same capabilities as a human. You can go further down this rabbit hole and read about the question that spawned the halting problem, called the entscheidungsproblem (decision problem) to see that AI is actually more impossible than I let on.

              • leonardo_arachoo@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                Here are two groups of claims I disagree with that I think you must agree with

                1 - brains do things that a computer program can never do. It is impossible for a computer to ever simulate the computation* done by a brain. Humans solve the halting problem by doing something a computer could never do.

                2 - It is necessary to solve the halting problem to write computer programs. Humans can only write computer programs because they solve the halting problem first.

                *perhaps you will prefer a different word here

                I would say that:

                • it doesn’t require solving any halting problems to write computer programs
                • there is no general solution to the halting problem that works on human brains but not on computers.
                • computers can in principle simulate brains with enough accuracy to simulate any computation happening on a brain. However, there would be far cheaper ways to do any computation.

                Which of my statements do you disagree with?

  • JohnnyCanuck@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    “Massive Trouble”

    Step 1 - Scrape everyone’s data to make your LLM and make a high profile deal worth $10B

    Step 2 - Get sued by everyone whose data you scraped

    Step 3 - Settle and everyone in the class will be eligible for $5 credit using ChatGPT-4

    Step 4 - Bask in the influx of new data

    Step 5 - Profit

  • Treemaster099@pawb.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Good. Technology always makes strides before the law can catch up. The issue with this is that multi million dollar companies use these gaps in the law to get away with legally gray and morally black actions all in the name of profits.

    Edit: This video is the best way to educate yourself on why ai art and writing is bad when it steals from people like most ai programs currently do. I know it’s long, but it’s broken up into chapters if you can’t watch the whole thing.

    • PlebsicleMcGee@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Totally agree. I don’t care that my data was used for training, but I do care that it’s used for profit in a way that only a company with big budget lawyers can manage

  • Technoguyfication@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    It’s wild to see people in the piracy community of all places have an issue with someone benefiting from data they got online for free.

    • Briongloid@aussie.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Many of us are sharing without reward and have strong ethical beliefs regarding for-profit distribution of material versus non-profit sharing.