Black Mirror creator unafraid of AI because it’s “boring”::Charlie Brooker doesn’t think AI is taking his job any time soon because it only produces trash

  • lloram239@feddit.de
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    8
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Have you ever even bothered to play around with any of the LLMs or are you just parroting what you heard in badly written articles?

    The fact that the LLM predicts the next word does in no way shape or form limits its intelligence. That’s after all the same thing you do while writing your post.

    These idiotic claims about AI not being intelligent really make me questions if humans are.

    • Clent@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Yes. I’ve used them. I have used it beyond the point of it hallucinating.

      I am also a software engineer and have deeper understanding of how these systems work than your average user.

      The software community tends to approach these things with more caution than the general population. The media overblows the capabilities of these systems.

      A more concrete example is autonomous vehicles which were promised for decades and even now with a form of them on the road, they are still closer to remote controlled vehicles than the intelligent self contained systems we have been promised.

      The difference between predictive text on a smart phone and predictive text of an LLM is my smart phone is predicting what I am likely to type next based on things i have typed in the past, while the LLM is predicting what comes next based on a larger body of work from source pulled from all across the internet. The LLM is then tuned by humans. This tuning step is under reported.

      The LLM is unable to determine the truth of its own output. I would argue that is a key to claiming intelligence but determining what intelligence means is itself a philosophical question up for debate.

      • banneryear1868@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        The LLM is unable to determine the truth of its own output. I would argue that is a key to claiming intelligence but determining what intelligence means is itself a philosophical question up for debate.

        Yeah exactly and a great way to see this is by asking it to produce two viewpoints about the same subject, a negative and positive review of something you’re familiar with is perfect. It produces this hilarious “critic” type jargon but you can tell it doesn’t actually understand. Coincidentally, it’s drawing from a lot of text where the original human author(s) might not understand either and are merely themselves re-producing a jargon-heavy text for an assignment by their employer or academic institution. If AI can so accurately replicate some academic paper that probably didn’t need to be written for anything other than to meet publishing standards for tenured professors, then that’s really a reflection on the source material. Since LLM can only create something based on existing input, almost all the criticisms of it, are criticisms that can apply to it’s source material.

    • banneryear1868@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      It’s not really “intelligent” though, as in it’s not thinking about what it’s doing. What AI will do very well is reproduce jargon, and if it’s jargon that we associate with intelligence then it appears intelligent. Academic papers for instance it can do a very convincing job because that format is so repetitive and jargon heavy.

      You can do an experiment by asking it to produce a positive review of something niche and academic you’re familiar with, then ask it to produce a negative review of the same subject. It will produce convincing dialogue for either scenario, but it does not know which is more true/accurate, and it will come across as a student writing about something they didn’t do the reading for.

      The “question if humans are [intelligent]” is the more relevant thing here. We’re constantly expected to communicate with thoughtlessly reproduced jargon, and many of us can do this very well in a way that gives the impression of intelligent thought. The fact AI can do this, and that people are concerned about how intelligent it appears, is more a reflection on how derivative our notions of intelligence can be in these settings.

    • rambaroo@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      The fact that you believe an LLM is “intelligent” tells me you have no clue how they work and your comments on the matter can be ignored.

      • lloram239@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Oh look, another parrot.

        Still waiting for any of you to actually define “intelligent” in some way that ChatGPT fails at or are you just going to pull the old boring “human exceptionalism”-card out of the hat?