Technology

59534 readers

3195 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

Follow the lemmy.world rules.
Only tech related content.
Be excellent to each another!
Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
Politics threads may be removed.
No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

144

pluralistic: the alarmism around AI is just a marketing spin. (pluralistic.net)

submitted 10 months ago by Sibbo@sopuli.xyz to c/technology@lemmy.world

34 comments fedilink hide all child comments

source

The alarmism around AI is just a marketing spin.

As @pluralistic@mamot.fr wrote: that's "mystical nonsense about spontaneous consciousness arising from applied statistics".

Real problems we face with AI are:

Ghost labor, erosion of the rights of artists, costs of automation, the climate impact of data-centers and the human impact of biased, opaque, incompetent and unfit algorithmic systems.

https://pluralistic.net/2023/11/27/10-types-of-people/

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] Womble@lemmy.world 13 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (3 children)

We dont have anything that passes the Turing test. The test isnt just "does it trick people casually talking to it into thinking its a person" its can it decieve a pannel of experts deliberately try to tease out which one of the "people" they are talking to isnt a human.

AFAIK no LLM has passed a rigourious test like that.

[–] Thorny_Insight@lemm.ee 9 points 9 months ago (1 children)

GPT4 ironically fails the Turing test by possessing such a wide knowledge on variety of topics that it's obvious it can't be a human. Basically it's too competent to be a human even despite its flaws

[–] Cethin@lemmy.zip 1 points 9 months ago

This is my problem with the conversation. It doesn't "posses knowledge" like we think of with humans. It repeats stuff it's seen before. It doesn't understand the context in which it was encountered. It doesn't know if it came from a sci-fi book or a scientific journal, and it doesn't understand the difference. It has no knowledge of the world and how things interact. It only appears knowledgeable because it can basically memorize a lot of things, but it doesn't understand them.

It's like cramming for a test. You may pass the test, but it doesn't mean you actually understand the material. You could only repeat what you read. Knowledge requires actually understanding why the material is what it is.

[–] Excrubulent@slrpnk.net 3 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Yeah, and in no way could it. Just ask how many words are in its reply and it will say, "There are 37 words in this reply." It's not even vaguely convincing.

[–] otp@sh.itjust.works 2 points 9 months ago

Yeah, it should just say "Why would you ask me such a stupid question? Count them yourself."

[–] TheBlackLounge@lemm.ee 2 points 9 months ago

Nobody is doing these tests, but it's not uncommon these days for mistaking something for being AI generated. Even in professional settings, people are hypervigilant.