Hacker News Reader

Comment by olalonde | Hacker News Reader

You are ranting about a bunch of things that I've never witnessed on HN or anywhere really (except perhaps for that one guy from Google whose claims were quickly debunked on HN and elsewhere). No one claimed that GPT-3 was sentient or possessed human level intelligence. The more common "religious/pseudoscientific" claims I've seen around here are those that completely dismiss the possibility of human level AI because of some miraculous-like property of the brain.

View on HN

The question of "human-level AI" isnt relevant to the field of AI as it exists.

It's like someone in crypto talking about a future crypto-based financial system whilst at the same time being unable to processes basically any transactions, stabalise any currency, ensure any regulation, deal with any fraud, etc.

Or likewise, an MLM health company talking about cures for cancer all the while hocking vitamin supplements.

The question of what properties animals have which enable them to implement intelligence isn't relevant to whether correlative statistical techniques which capture word frequencies are "intelligence" -- inasmuch as vitamin 'science' isnt relevant to curing cancer.

This gross level of chalatanism, wishful-thinking, scamming, delusion and out-right fraud is overwhelming.

Who exactly is claiming to have solved human-level AI? Can you give some examples of "gross level of charlatanism, wishful-thinking, scamming, delusion and out-right fraud"? I genuinely haven't witnessed any of that. In my experience, most AI people acknowledge that the timeline for AGI is unknown and that it will most likely involve yet to be discovered algorithms, not just throwing more data/processing power at it.

>most AI people acknowledge that the timeline for AGI is unknown and that it will most likely involve yet to be discovered algorithms, not just throwing more data/processing power at it.

Try telling that to Sutskever or Karpathy (or indeed a bunch of "rationalists" on twitter, at least a subset of which works in AI) because both of them have made the claim you assert you haven't seen.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com