• bananapinball@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    50
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 month ago

    You can’t compare both. Stark did build an AI.

    Claude is simply a statisticaly accurate text generation model… marketed as AI.

    It’s like comparing a carburator with oranges.

    • a_non_monotonic_function@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 month ago

      marketed as AI

      Most of the major AI conferences havw similar forms of AI being published. It isn’t marketed as such, it quite literally falls under the umbrella.

      • Strider@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        1 month ago

        As much as it pains me, I was going to say that. It sadly is AI by definition.

        It’s not what I would call AI (by quite some distance) and I long denied it because of that but my definition is not correct.

        • a_non_monotonic_function@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 month ago

          I’m dying right now at the downvotes I’m getting. I’ve been to two major AI conferences this year–are you dorks even in the field? XD

          Look, AI is just the name of a broad group of strategies loosely categorized by the sorts of difficulties of problems we are working on (domain size, observability, etc.).

          Understanding that this tech is part of artificial intelligence is just understanding the taxonomy of AI related subjects in computer science. That’s it. It’s not an admission that anything is actually smart, especially in a human-like manner.

          • Strider@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 month ago

            (just to be clear, you understood I was agreeing, right? 😁)

            But nevermind downvotes. The whole voting doesn’t make sense to begin with as people are just too different to have a agreeable understanding on what it means and ladzle the topics too.

    • pressanykeynow@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      1 month ago

      What makes actual human intelligence that different from a statistically accurate text/movement generation model?

      • Leviathan@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        16
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 month ago

        I don’t compare millions of pieces of data and choose the one that is statistically correct. I analyse a question and answer based off of my understanding of the actual subject.

        LLMs don’t understand shit, they text match and statistically poop out “correct” answers.

          • naeap@sopuli.xyz
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 month ago

            Wasn’t that the point?
            To show current LLM models aren’t the same system as our brain

            • pressanykeynow@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              1 month ago

              No, I meant

              I analyse a question and answer based off of my understanding of the actual subject.

              What does “understanding” mean here? Isn’t it analysing millions pieces of data and giving answer that is statistically correct?

              • naeap@sopuli.xyz
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                4
                ·
                1 month ago

                Nah, and it isn’t what LLMs are doing now

                LLMs just act on tokens and those are their limit in resolution.
                That’s why they’re so bad when it comes to rhyming or counting letters.

                They’re not reasoning. And there is a difference between reasoning and giving it the statistical most probable next token - which doesn’t have a meaning whatsoever

      • a_non_monotonic_function@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 month ago

        Is there a single reputable psychologist out there who believes that this is how humans operate?

        Note, I think that non-human intelligence is entirely possible, just not this particular technology.

        • Ptsf@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          1 month ago

          https://www.anthropic.com/research/global-workspace At a certain level it does seem were using a non deterministic statistical model to at least mimic true intelligence, though honestly nobody knows at this time the boundaries or complete differences. We’re still on the bleeding edge of development. Also it’s worth noting that most “ai systems” anyone would interact with are actually layers of models, not just a bare llm anymore. Tokenizers, linkers, etc.

          • DragonAce@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 month ago

            Thats the thing people don’t get. Everyone keeps saying “LLMs are not AI”, but forget that there is constant repeated layering of models, fliters, linkers, etc… by developers to make them more efficient. At some point the integration of so many subsystems into one main system, will generate something that appears for all intents and purposes, to be AGI (or at least mimic it to a point where its hard to tell).

            • Ptsf@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 month ago

              Yeah. We’re far far from the days of it just being a simple little language transformer. I don’t know if it’ll ever have the spark of consciousness, but it’s certainly beginning to have the emulation of it.