hmm, as bit disasapointed!

 

The pj5w1gn5 from jek4jej is zehrj63v to the 2npn8s4qt and brbe07hkd. Why is jek4jej not working?

If you can't answer this simple question because you have no idea what I'm talking about, why do you expect an AI to be able to do it?

 

Last edited: Mar 31, 2023

This has moved to more metaphysical debates. IMHO regardless of how much they can do nowadays modern AIs are truly intelligent.
Facts:

1. They aren't human intelligence simulators, although obviously are related. It's another kind of intelligence. No silliness like consciousness and that stuff please.
2. Training. Deep Learning for once is a good name. They train with a shitload of data (database if you will) and adjust with already known good or bad results. And people also train like fuckers since they're born. Recent captchas anyone?, great example
3. Finished algorithm (or whatever). Another good name frequently used: inference. Which is to deduct an untrained result successfully. I stress untrained. That's intelligence for me.

Obviously I'm oversimplifying but the results are there. At the rhythm they're improving the question is how much 'til can do X. I saw an interesting vid about music generation:

 

I think it's great that you disagree and tell me why. This is purely philosophical, no one has the truth to know what will happen in the future.
But answering what you tell me:
I think everything is based on information, asbolubstly everything, incusive the intelligent one.
You tell me that if the human being does not have the information he will use intelligence to solve a problem, but he will not do it, because he will not have that information. Just @Sinus Well ( and in passing I answer him ) something like if Adjetojf is equal to dhjasa, how would it be if dofsds applies. Well, what would we do? we would start looking for information about what we know, that is, we see letters, and we will try to look for some coherence between one thing and the other, you see what I mean? we will look for information in our "hard disk" (brain) to see what the heck it is, but if we do not find anything, we will say "I do not know what the heck it is". And if the AI were to match a human being, it would do exactly the same, it would say, I don't know what it is.
That's my way of seeing things. For me, absolutely everything is information, and we are continually relating everything based on the information we have. And if you ask me something like "I saw a video where a kid wanted to get off his bed, and he took some pillows and put them on the floor and then he got off by leaning on them (this is real, he did that). You tell me, he had no information, he is only 1 years old, he used his intelligence. Yes, but as I said before, we are born with instinct in our genes, and genes store information from our past, that's why sometimes we can have certain reactions for example, survival, and we say, how did I do that? how is it possible? it's because in our genes we carry that information. And that is what AI would lack, the enormous amount of infor

 

Because when we went to the hotel it wasn't her, it was him.

 

ChatGPT gives the correct answer BTW:

 

You beat me. I can't disagree with your reply. I think I was a bit simplifying my argument. So, actually we use our past experiences and with logic we transform them to usable information. But many times when we have no clue, we guess/suppose a possible outcome (based on apparently unrelated experiences). And if we do it intelligently, we test it until we think it's sufficiently proven to be the right answer.
Now, these AI algorithms probably don't verify themselves (enough), yet.
The problem here is that ChatGPT is too confident. It should say "I don't know" in much more situations. Instead, it has the conviction that knows the answer because of some unchecked data it has found on the internet.

The whole anomaly with ChatGPT will remain to be as same as practically what happens in other platforms and other areas, in media (blogs, social media posts, channels) and art industry. (Genius artists also need some control to produce remarkable peaces, IMO.)
The key is it needs skilled human control to operate, not just to create the algorithm.
And that's why I doubt autonomous vehicles will ever be materialized, too. Even autonomous subway have human control for some reason.

Your home printer can do its job autonomously until paper gets stuck inside or it's running out of paper or toner, then you need to interact.

AI is a tool, not the replacement of human experiences and thinking.

What also bugs me about this ChatGPT that it says "as an AI language model, I can't provide..."
It's not marketed as a language model, its creators and fans state that it can solve tasks.
Siri and Alexa are language models. They serve as a virtual assistant to give you hand free solutions, not an expert to solve anything instead of you.

 

XDDD !! wonderfull

 

That's what I think, I'm not saying it's so. But it's my philosophy, and it's really a debate that I don't think has an end even for the experts on the subject.

The other time I saw a study that was done to some people where they had to choose between a "red" or "blue" color based on a question.
For example, they asked them "Do you think it is good to eat meat" and if they touched a button of one color it was yes and the other one was no. At the same time they were monitoring their brain on a computer. And according to these "scientists" the brain decided before the person pressed the button. I don't understand well the matter, but they said that according to the color, a part of the brain was illuminated. And that is another point (for me) interesting. And here I am going to go very philosophical. We believe to be one, I believe to be Ryck and to be "one unit" that thinks and acts as one. But in reality we are composed of more than "one", our neurons, our organism in general. So when we think, decide, etc. We are not just that "one" there is a network of living beings in our brain constantly exchanging information, which in turn makes us take one decision or another. And this is something that AI is far from reaching. Pain, pain makes us make decisions that if we did not feel pain, we would not make that decision. For example. If your computer falls on you and it's hurting you, the pain will make you make a decision in the face of the pain, and maybe you throw it away, kick it. That in another situation without pain, you would not do it. The AI would not make a drastic decision, because it would be incapable of feeling pain.
It is too complex.
I agree with you, IA should be a tool and not a replacement, but that is already happening. But is someone really imposing AI on us? I don't think so. Because many of us when choosing between going to a recording studio or recording at home, we record at home, for comfort and for money. The same as when we choose a vst that "does" (good or bad) the work of a mastering engineer. The same when someone chooses to learn to play an instrument with a software instead of going to a teacher. And so we replace each other, until at some point everything is done by AI.

 

There's actually a very rare condition that makes people not feel pain. But that's for another topic.

Well, not everything, unless we guess centuries ahead. I mainly agree with your post otherwise.

 

ChatGPT is weak AI

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weak_artificial_intelligence

These 3 would be real AI or like its called (Strong AI), but if its even possible it will take more than an lifetime from now on.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_general_intelligence

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_consciousness

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superintelligence