I stand corrected. Still, Trump threatened to imprison other people who didn’t start dressing like a bro and talking differently after the election - and who still aren’t imprisoned.
I had a similar experience with not being able to convince Claude of a different approach to a problem. Then I shared the idea with Codex and it liked it. As another commenter said, you can have the same thing happen with humans.
Does it matter if "intelligence and reasoning" are there if what they produce is indistinguishable (or outmatches) what a human could produce?
You only have your own experience to judge that you are even reasoning. You assume others have similar experience and so reason like you because they are able to do all the things that you do - and they look human like you. We can't prove there's a there there in other humans. What happens when the robots are doing everything humans do? What happens when they tell us they are reasoning, when they say they have an internal experience? Maybe there's nothing there, but you can't prove it. Moreover, it's likely they'll be able to affect the world and you in most of the same ways as humans can, whether there's a there there or not.
You mean the article in general is 100% LLM, or the arrangement of these four words is 100% LLM?
I find it extremely unlikely LLMs would have the monopoly on this particular word arrangement—and indeed they would have learned it from training material produced by people in the first place.
However, the one thing I feel like is missed by some in these conversations is that what's being built is a general purpose thinking machine, not a coding machine. How are we going to transition from writing code to solving problems when the machines are solving the problems?
You can't outsource understanding, and to the extent LLMs can understand anything they can only learn through training. So until LLMs can truly learn, rather than bringing themselves up to speed with huge contexts, you'll probably still want some people who understand what it's doing.
I think Navier Stokes is a brilliant case study for all that it didn't do. An AI 'solved' a famous problem, of a kind that is impossible to cheat, yet the reaction is incredibly apathetic. Why? Because it apparently failed to do the thing people were hoping it would, but what exactly? Of course it also manages to fumble the delivery by antagonising the people most interested in the result, but still.
The honest AI boosters do claim we won’t solve problems anymore, we will live animals in a zoo, overseen by machines of loving grace.
The retard AI boosters, tell us to be AI first, learn this harness bro, loops are yesterday, now it’s graphs, use 100 agents a minimum or be left behind, actually world will require 100X more software engineers.
Why would we still be alive? Once we have advanced enough AI inside not only computers but robots, the rich will no longer need us. They will have the robots farm the land, clean their homes, fly their planes, etc. We will then have no income and therefore no way to feed ourselves. Most people do not own enough farm land to keep themselves alive.
In the past, such imbalances of power were resolved because the rich still relied upon the poor for everything (security, food, etc). I think we're approaching the point where even armed insurrection is no longer an option with the advances in automated killing machines. We're not there yet, but it's coming.
We're currently at the part of the story where chess AI can beat amateurs and is rapidly improving. Kasparov's not worried, he's an expert. He's more creative and skilled than an AI.
Why would these machines stop improving at average this time?
I didn't say they weren't improving. My point is that if our justification is comparing the top 10% of performers to AI to justify human performance, that speaks poorly for the replacement of the bottom 10% of humans.
reply