Where is the evidence for this? There is no such system available at the moment — not anything that even comes close.
I’m guessing your answer will be some variation on ‘just look at the exponential growth, man’, but I’d love to be wrong.
Same applies for AI, plus even now, with custom tools, one can already churn out high quality output with custom models, it’s just accuracy of it is still an uncracked part. But I think we’ll get there soon too.
Ofcourse this is why I said “soon” and not “now”.
Not an argument. Plenty of things seemed like they will progress/grow exponentially when they were invented yet they didn’t.
> Same applies for AI
Perhaps, but why?
In what domain exactly? Be precise with your claims.
I've yet to see an LLM-produced insight on... anything. The ability of these models to manipulate (and, yes, seemingly understand) language is freakishly good. Utterly scarily good, in fact. But keep probing and (if you yourself have sufficiently deep knowledge of the topic to allow good enough questions to be asked) you'll quickly find it lacking and come to the conclusion that the words are all there is — they're not a serialisation of the model's abstract free-floating conceptualised understanding; they are the understanding.
I suspect, though this may sound arrogant, that the vast majority of those making such grandiose claims about 'AI' are not subject matter experts in anything. They're the same people who think being able to pump out endless Python scripts to solve various canned problems means a system can 'code', or that cranking out (perhaps even very relevant!) rhyming sentences means it 'understands poetry'... and I say this as someone who is neither a programmer nor a poet and so has no skin in the game.
Again: I'm happy to be proven wrong. But I'm not expecting much.
I don't think anyone has claimed this so far in the conversation.
> I suspect, though this may sound arrogant, that the vast majority of those making such grandiose claims about 'AI' are not subject matter experts in anything.
> you'll quickly find it lacking and come to the conclusion that the words are all there is — they're not a serialisation of the model's abstract free-floating conceptualised understanding; they are the understanding.
No one is claiming they are intelligent, and a subject matter expert doesn't need a model to tell them anything insightful -- they need a model to do the annoying gruntwork for them as proficiently as possible, which is what they are good for.
They have claimed something that makes it necessary. It was claimed that LLMs will 'soon' be able to 'write high quality books for us about each field'. If you can't produce a single insight on the topic, any book you write is going to fundamentally be a (very high level, likely almost verbatim) rehash of others, and therefore wouldn't usually be considered high quality. Not to mention the fact that an inability to generate real insight is indicative of a lack of an underlying model that isn't overfitted to the language used to express the examples.
> No one is claiming they are intelligent
I'm glad not, because I wouldn't be sure what they mean by that.
> a subject matter expert doesn't need a model to tell them anything insightful
Indeed not. Having existing ideas be juxtaposed, recontextualised or even repeated can be valuable. But to claim that AI will be writing entire books that are worth reading seems laughable to me. There's no sign that we're close to that. Just play with the state of the art models for a while and try and push them.
I'm convinced that anyone who believes otherwise just doesn't have the technical expertise (and that's not a generic insult; it's true of most of us) to probe deeply enough to see the fragility of these models. They look at the output and (erroneously, due to the unknown unknowns involved) think themselves perfectly qualified to judge it high quality — and they do so, with great vigour.
If your only claim is simply 'LLMs can remix natural language in a way that sometimes proves useful', then fine. I absolutely agree.
Anyway such a conversation would be useless without defining exactly what 'intelligence' even means.
> I'm convinced that anyone who believes otherwise just doesn't have the technical expertise (and that's not a generic insult; it's true of most of us) to probe deeply enough to see the fragility of these models.
'It doesn't seem like it something I would value and anyone who doesn't agree isn't an expert'.
There are experts in technical fields who would find value in having an AI triage patients, or double check materials strengths for building projects, or to cross reference court cases and check arguments for them. As the parent to whom you are replying noted: it is just the accuracy that needs to be fixed.
> Having existing ideas be juxtaposed, recontextualised or even repeated can be valuable. But to claim that AI will be writing entire books that are worth reading seems laughable to me.
There are no grand insights in technical reference books or instructional materials, just "existing ideas...juxtaposed, recontextualised" and "repeated".
Don't even pretend you think that's what I'm trying to say. Read my response again you need to.
> There are experts in technical fields who would find value in having an AI triage patients
I already said this. I'm not saying experts in technical fields cannot find value in AI; I'm saying that they have enough knowledge to be able to expose the fragility of the models. Triaging patients doesn't require expert knowledge, which is why AI can do it.
> or to cross reference court cases and check arguments for them
I seriously doubt that, actually. Are you, or is anyone else saying this, a lawyer? My position is that you have to be an expert to be able to evaluate the output of the models. It looking like it knows what it's talking about simply isn't enough.
What I said was 1) they could write instructional and reference books and no one claimed they were insightful and 2) that they are useful to experts even if they are not insightful.
I'm not sure what we are arguing about anymore if you are not going to dispute those two things.