Can we get those memes to mutate to still be derisive and mocking, but no longer imply the AI isn’t strong? Seems easier than mutating away the derision. Would need to still embed the disapproval or it won’t stick
Another one is the imminent prediction that AI progress will soon stop or plateau because of diminishing returns or limitations of the technology. Even a professor I know believed that.
I think that’s a possibility but I think this belief is usually a consequence of wishful thinking and status quo bias rather than carefully examining the current evidence and trajectory of the technology.
I think this is just because currently AI systems are viscerally dumb. I think almost all people will change their minds on this eventually. I think people are at greater risk of forgetting they ever believed AI is dumb, than denying AI capabilities long after they’re obviously superhuman.
I’m not sure how to even engage with this category of claims because they totally ignore the obvious question that’s automatically implied when you assert them, that being how exactly human intelligence differs from whatever term you use to say that LLMs don’t have real intelligence.
Maybe belief in some of these terms is another good poll question. I suspect all of them are only going to get more common and dogmatic.
Pretty much anything you point out to these will be met with derision unfortunately. From the same thread (on /r/technology) as the above samples, and in response to reasonable comments:
> Jesus, you are not the brightest bulb are you?
> There’s always someone who wants to argue that LLMs have intelligence and aren’t simply designed to respond in specific ways.
> Truly a braindead take. Congrats
> All those words to, once again, reiterate that these things are incredible machines for making correlations, but not for establishing causations 🙄
There are lots of potent memes in this space, which I see invoked often on reddit threads. Some examples:
> Calling it “AI” is marketing bullshit that I will never forgive. It’s incredibly frustrating how few people see that.
> they are and always have been stochastic parrots
> Its not intelligent. It understands nothing. It’s a sophisticated search engine that can produce/create content from data sources.
> The word “AI” continues to confuse people. It’s simply a marketing term no different than Tesla’s “Full Self Driving.”
> A regurgitation machine.
> It is simply advanced text prediction
Can we get those memes to mutate to still be derisive and mocking, but no longer imply the AI isn’t strong? Seems easier than mutating away the derision. Would need to still embed the disapproval or it won’t stick
Another one is the imminent prediction that AI progress will soon stop or plateau because of diminishing returns or limitations of the technology. Even a professor I know believed that.
I think that’s a possibility but I think this belief is usually a consequence of wishful thinking and status quo bias rather than carefully examining the current evidence and trajectory of the technology.
I think this is just because currently AI systems are viscerally dumb. I think almost all people will change their minds on this eventually. I think people are at greater risk of forgetting they ever believed AI is dumb, than denying AI capabilities long after they’re obviously superhuman.
not if it’s always idiot-savant in some way
I’m not sure how to even engage with this category of claims because they totally ignore the obvious question that’s automatically implied when you assert them, that being how exactly human intelligence differs from whatever term you use to say that LLMs don’t have real intelligence.
Maybe belief in some of these terms is another good poll question. I suspect all of them are only going to get more common and dogmatic.
Pretty much anything you point out to these will be met with derision unfortunately. From the same thread (on /r/technology) as the above samples, and in response to reasonable comments:
> Jesus, you are not the brightest bulb are you?
> There’s always someone who wants to argue that LLMs have intelligence and aren’t simply designed to respond in specific ways.
> Truly a braindead take. Congrats
> All those words to, once again, reiterate that these things are incredible machines for making correlations, but not for establishing causations 🙄
> This is nonsense
Seeing “stochastic parrots” repeated by people who don’t know what “stochastic” is will never stop being funny.