Such a fallacy. Anything that falls under the umbrella of machine learning will contribute to future AI. We certainly won’t improve LLMs such that they become AGI, but all of it contributes.
And, whether or not future AI even uses traditional silicon computing is also irrelevant.
What matters is improved understanding of mathematics, neurons, chemistry, electronics, etc. That all happens each step of the way, even if the next technology is completely different.
I’m pro optimistic nihilism. Nothing has any inherent meaning, so I have the privilege of assigning my own meaning to things.
No, it will be the same field of technology. LLMs are just a facet of AI, currently. I’m done having this discussion with you, as you do not have the capability to grasp rational thought or have a rational discussion.
And, no. You started the insults. I responded with a couple.
That’s some pretty absurd logic. It is clear there is no point in continuing this discussion, as you are too easily trapped by logical fallacies and are too quick to jump to insults. Hopefully you can take some time to try to grow as a person.
The field of Machine Learning and Artificial Intelligence does not depend on the success of Large Language Models, and LLMs quite possibly have reached their limits. I do not see that as relevant.
I am far from dumb. I got 60/60 problems correct on a proctored Raven’s Progressive Matrices as a teenager. That places my pattern recognition much higher than most of the world’s population. I taught myself C++ when I was six years old in 1997.
You’ve created a strawman by recasting my argument to a point that I am not making. I did not say “trust vendor promises” or “ignore current failures.” I said present-state-only evaluation is a bad way to judge emerging technology.
Engineering forecasting is not limited to closed-form physics. It also uses empirical progress, deployment data, cost curves, failure modes, and observed capability gains. Your pig analogy only works if AI had no demonstrated utility and no measurable improvement. That is plainly false.
Criticize cost, energy use, incentives, etc. Those are real arguments. But “some promises are hype, therefore the whole field is slop and cannot improve” is not analysis. It is just cynicism with insults attached.
With our current mathematical models of physics, if you travel faster than light, you go backwards in time. Though, most scientific communities reject the possibility of FTL travel. However, there’s still the idea of tachyons, I guess.
A pretty good source on the topic: https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLsPUh22kYmNC0xsEp6YXRq2ALms7fTwrx
You truly don’t, though. You believe it. That doesn’t make it true. We do not have enough data to know what the future holds regarding AI.
A personal anecdote is all that’s needed to refute a blanket statement like the implication that self-driving does not exist yet.
Again, it seems you are just a really upset and negative person. I feel bad for you. It would be very easy to have a pleasant discussion or debate on the topic.
If we only ever evaluated technology on its present state of being, we wouldn’t have planes for instance. That’s not a really sound methodology. “It doesn’t work now. Therefore, it should be abandoned.” Like, what?
Though, perhaps what you mean is “we shouldn’t be investing billions in unproven technology.” That, I agree with. I think most would.
I’ve been in vehicles with self-driving, and they perform better than the average driver in every situation I’ve encountered.
You seem like a really angry person. I’m sorry your experiences in life are so miserable.
We already have it
Recent LLMs are very capable at doing almost all simple computing tasks. At some point in the future, we will have AI that is more generally useful than current LLMs. If and when we have truly general purpose AI, it could benefit humanity in countless ways. It could also continue to cause harm. We can’t know for sure.
That’s not 1:1, and like I said, it depends on what you mean by smarter.
This is true, depending on what you mean by smarter. They are undeniably more capable. However, the trendy, cool things is to hate on AI, rejecting all else. Sure, capitalism sucks, and the powerful rich people and companies who control AI suck. AI itself, though, can very easily result in massive benefits for humanity as a whole.
I agree that we’re in for pain, given that capitalism runs the show, but there is a world where AI takes mostly all of the jobs, where we use renewable energy, and capitalism crumbles by necessity. If everything is automated, and electricity becomes essentially free, then all necessities become essentially free. Of course, it is much more likely that the oligarchy prevents that from happening and we have no jobs and we have to pay for everything that costs them nothing.
I guess what I want to say is that the technology shouldn’t be villainized; the villains should be villainized. The solution isn’t to get rid of AI, it’s to get rid of the ultra-wealthy and work towards a society not run by late stage capitalism.
This is what annoys me about “fuck AI” being the new trendy/cool thing. The issue is not AI itself, and if done right, can be a huge benefit to humanity as a whole. The issue is all the greed of the rich capitalists in control of it. And, also, when it’s needlessly shoved down our throats when it truly has no benefit, or in fact only drawbacks.
Doing with it, sure, but the creation of LLMs, and the algorithms behind them, especially the training, are what I’m talking about. It’s a lot of very impressive, complicated math
I think it’s pretty pathetic that “fuck AI” has become the trendy, cool thing. It really misses the mark. It should be fuck capitalism and the sociopathic CEOs abusing AI and shoving it down our throats. AI is not the problem.