Hacker News Reader

Comment by farias0 | Hacker News Reader

You mean we're not there in simulating an actual human brain? Sure. But we're seeing AI work like a human well enough to be useful, isn't that the point?

View on HN

Not if we’re pretending it is any inteligent. Other than that I’m all in for new utility to come out from it. But I do see a lot of tangents off technology with claims to something it is not. I have no problem of calling that out. Why do you mind? Just ignore me if Im holding your enthusiasm back, there’s plenty of sources to provide that for you.

> Not if we’re pretending it is any inteligent.

We have been shifting the definition of what it means to be intelligent every 3 months following the advances of LLM...

There's also this:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Closed-world_assumption

I wonder, once LLM's exceed Humans beyond some substantial threshold, will it crack the simulation allowing us to get back in the game again.

Crack what simulation exactly? You can get back into the game right now, armed with these tools such as LLMs, ML and so on.

Culture, memetics, consciousness, etc.

Indeed, but simply using them is not enough.

So what? I’m not disputing that the immitation of intelligence is not good and it gets better and better every 3 months or so. But that doesn’t mean anything, even if it gets close to 99.9%. It is not real intlligence and it is quite limited in what it does. If LLMs solve logic or problems or chemistry problems it is solely not because it made a leap in understanding but because it was trained on a zillion examples. If you have a similar problem it will try to showhorn an answer without understanding where it fails. Am I saying this is useless? NO. What I’m saying is that the current approach to intelligence is missing some key ingredients. Im actually surprised so many get fooled by the hype and are ready to declare a winner. Human intelligence with it’s major flaws is still king of the hill.

How do you distinguish between the real thing and a perfect simulation of the real thing?

You seem to be engaged in faith-based reasoning at this point. If you were born in a sensory deprivation chamber you also would have no inner world, and you wouldn't have anything at all to say about solving chemistry problems.

> Im actually surprised so many get fooled by the hype and are ready to declare a winner.

Find me one person that says something like this. "AGI is here!" hype-lords exist only as a rhetorical device for the peanut gallery to ridicule.

It’s the approach that matters. When it gets to 99.9 percent it’s pretty good to be dangerous. At that point it would be hard to tell but not impossible. As soon as a new type problem comes out it will bork on you and need retraining. It’ll be a game of catch albeit an very inneficient one. Im sure we will find a more efficient method eventually but the point still stands, what we have isn’t it.

I’ll shut up when I see leaps in reasoning without specific training on all variations possible of the problem sets.

I'll shut up when I see humans get 99.9% on anything. This seems an awful lot like non-meat brain prejudice where standards that humans do not live up to at all are imposed on other things in order to be worthy of consideration

That’s actually good. The more voices the better, that will make for a more vibrant discussion.

I'd settle for an "I don't know" instead of confidently made up nonsense.

People who say I don't know I can respect. People who confidently make up nonsense don't get many responsibilities from me.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com