They are choosing to abstain from using artificial intelligence for environmental, ethical and personal reasons. Maybe they have a point, writes Guardian columnist Arwa Mahdawi
But yes. Exactly in the use of “Artificial Intelligence”.
Artificial Intelligence is a wide field, consisting of a plethora of methods. LLMs like ChatGPT are part of this wide field, as per definition how researchers are describing the field.
The “intelligence” part is an issue though if taken literal, since we have no clear definition of what “intelligence” even is. Neither for human / natural intelligence, nor for artificial. But that’s how the field was labled. We have created a category for a bunch of methods, models and algorithms and sticked “AI” onto it. Therefore I stand by what I have said before:
It is AI.
Due to the lack of a clear definition for “intelligence” I would coarsely outline AI as: mimicking natural thinking, problem solving and decision processes without necessarily being identical. (This makes it difficult to distinguish it from plain calculators though, so a better definition is required.) So if we have a model that is able to distinguish cat pictures from non-cat pictures, that’s AI. And if we have “autocorrect on steroids” (credit to Dirk Hohndel) like ChatGPT, that matches the text comprehension skills of 15 year olds (just an example), then this too is AI.
One fundamental part of “intelligence” is being able to come up with independent thoughts. Another is to be able to think critically about those thoughts. LLMs cannot do either.
What is “thinking critically about thoughts”?
And what is an “independent thought”? Aren’t our brains not just reacting to sensory inputs and dictated by the way our brains are wired?
Maybe we should go even further and clarify what a “thought” even is.
Are animals, who lack the higher cognitive functions, that humans have, therefore not “intelligent”? Are mentally impaired people no longer to be considered “intelligent”? If so, where is the line to be drawn? What are the specific definitions and criteria to correctly distinguish intelligence from non- or pseudo-intelligence?
It find it unfortunate that you are unwilling to continue this discussion. I can only recommend to you to read more deeply about this topic in order to form a well founded and critical opinion, before judging things you do not seem to comprehend sufficiently.
Let me know as soon as you’d like to continue this matter. I am always open for a good discussion and good arguments.
(I am not sorry for “necroing”, sometimes I’m just not in the mood and/or don’t have the time to reply to various comments. But that’s the beauty of discussion platforms: it’s always possible to pick it up at a later time.)
I was going to wholeheartedly endorse your comment and then you ruin it in the last sentence with
that matches the text comprehension skills of 15 year olds (just an example), then this too is AI.
It feels like you know what you are talking about, but then confuse the successful statistical analysis of text as “comprehension” which is just plain factually wrong.
It is AI.
Not if you use “AI” as the abbreviation of “artificial intelligence”.
If you use AI as meaning “what chatGPT & co are” then it’s a trueism.
But yes. Exactly in the use of “Artificial Intelligence”.
Artificial Intelligence is a wide field, consisting of a plethora of methods. LLMs like ChatGPT are part of this wide field, as per definition how researchers are describing the field.
The “intelligence” part is an issue though if taken literal, since we have no clear definition of what “intelligence” even is. Neither for human / natural intelligence, nor for artificial. But that’s how the field was labled. We have created a category for a bunch of methods, models and algorithms and sticked “AI” onto it. Therefore I stand by what I have said before:
It is AI.
Due to the lack of a clear definition for “intelligence” I would coarsely outline AI as: mimicking natural thinking, problem solving and decision processes without necessarily being identical. (This makes it difficult to distinguish it from plain calculators though, so a better definition is required.) So if we have a model that is able to distinguish cat pictures from non-cat pictures, that’s AI. And if we have “autocorrect on steroids” (credit to Dirk Hohndel) like ChatGPT, that matches the text comprehension skills of 15 year olds (just an example), then this too is AI.
One fundamental part of “intelligence” is being able to come up with independent thoughts. Another is to be able to think critically about those thoughts. LLMs cannot do either.
Is it though? By which definition?
What is “thinking critically about thoughts”?
And what is an “independent thought”? Aren’t our brains not just reacting to sensory inputs and dictated by the way our brains are wired?
Maybe we should go even further and clarify what a “thought” even is.
Are animals, who lack the higher cognitive functions, that humans have, therefore not “intelligent”? Are mentally impaired people no longer to be considered “intelligent”? If so, where is the line to be drawn? What are the specific definitions and criteria to correctly distinguish intelligence from non- or pseudo-intelligence?
I dunno mate, go read the wikipedia article or something.
Well, in that case I wonder why you were criticising the field of AI. Doesn’t seem to be substantiated.
Me not having the spoons to debate a necro comment doesn’t make you right. ✌️
It find it unfortunate that you are unwilling to continue this discussion. I can only recommend to you to read more deeply about this topic in order to form a well founded and critical opinion, before judging things you do not seem to comprehend sufficiently.
Let me know as soon as you’d like to continue this matter. I am always open for a good discussion and good arguments.
(I am not sorry for “necroing”, sometimes I’m just not in the mood and/or don’t have the time to reply to various comments. But that’s the beauty of discussion platforms: it’s always possible to pick it up at a later time.)
I was going to wholeheartedly endorse your comment and then you ruin it in the last sentence with
It feels like you know what you are talking about, but then confuse the successful statistical analysis of text as “comprehension” which is just plain factually wrong.
sad. so close though.
Not my wording, but the one from the paper I have linked.
Enjoy being downvoted for being right
I don’t care about votes. I just hope that people start to comprehend this field a tiny bit better .
They won’t, because their opinion is political and ideological, not technical