Because right now LLMs (and potentially other forms of AI) are the only technology capable of doing it. Humans can too, but are much slower and more expensive.

Well the idea is you don’t need to code it yourself, you can have it do it for you. Sure it’ll have bugs the first few times, but humans also make mistakes the until they get the hang of it.

Yes, and that’s called a harness, which everyone uses these days. The harness increases perceived intelligence (or accuracy) by absurd amounts. You can “teach” (or the equivalent of) LLMs anything with a custom harness.

Counterpoint:

“Teach” the LLM the proper procedure for counting the Rs and tell it to commit that to a file (or as a tool call). Then from there it will suceed 100% of the time.

It doesn’t matter if it’s true learning or not. When you teach an employee to do something you give them the procedure and have them do it. If AI can be fed a procedure too, it will do it just fine even if it’s not in its true training. Does it matter if it’s consuming the procedure as prompt context everytime? Hell a lot of humans do read the procedure every time when it’s complex enough.

This is lemmy, balanced takes are not allowed.

I’m not advocating for it at all, not sure what made you think that. The moral argument is certainly there.

I think we’ll stop here. You’re making up imaginary points to respond to and ignoring what I actually said.

Perhaps I should have specified a good faith argument.

I don’t understand. You repeated the same argument I responded to and ignored my response entirely. That’s not how this works.

I’m not sure why you’re calling me an asshat just because we don’t share the same opinion though, do you have so little control of your emotions? Or are you not used to having your opinion challenged?

You don’t argue for others, you argue for you.

Too many people these days, on this platform but also many others, have unchallenged opinions. They copy the opinion of their peers, and they make sense because these peers only give you arguments in its favor. People also tend to believe in what they want to believe.

Arguing helps you question those beliefs. Because to have a good arguments, you gotta bring points, but because the person you’re arguing with won’t just blindly believe in that opinion you’ll have to defend them.

I know this isn’t a popular opinion on Lemmy and similar potent echo chambers, but perhaps for your own good and nobody else’s, try and have an argument.

But see that’s what you fail to understand. You can’t do that with a citrus because a citrus has no neurons. They don’t just interpret signals, they “code” them through RL training like they do with LLMs. In other words, it requires and is based on the brain’s neuroplasticity, aka its ability to respond to RL training.

To your argument “there is no sentience just because it’s neurological tissue”, I agree. However this is the very root of the idea that if the physical medium doesn’t matter, than why can’t AI running on silicon be sentient? The current era probably isn’t, but how will we know when it will be?

I’m sure you’re not as arrogant as to believe that out there in the universe the human brain is the only possible way to advanced intelligence. Why then is it so hard to believe that you don’t have to copy the brain 1:1 to create an artificial one? We’ve already copied such a big part anyway.

I don’t know, this entire comment is a rant on something I did not say.

The “board to interpret the signals” is nothing, it’s the fact that the neuronea themselves are trained the same way LLMs are trained that’s interesting. I think you’re under the delusion that the board does much here. It’s literally the GUI to the linux kernel.

Anyway, seeing as you’re not willing to have a good faith argument, I’ll just stop here.

The thing is, I have indeed done this many times, in fact I do it every time a new model comes out. Last year it was an intern at best, but now? It’s easily a coworker. Which would be nice, only this happened in less than a year. What happens in 5?

We’ve run tests with Astra this week for a 3d artist. Turns out the output quality is slightly better than most juniors in the field. Two weeks ago, the best model in the world couldn’t do beat a child.

Well, we know two things for certain:

• LLMs and neural networks as a primitive are trained like an optimised version of a human. Because we do know how we learn: positive and negative reinforcement. That’s seemingly how all animals learn, though there is supposedly some genetics at play too.

• Verbalizing our thoughts (eg. rubberduck technique) improves reasoning

This is what LLMs are built upon. Specifically because language makes reasoning much easier, LLMs are the best current form of AI we have at it.

Besides, saying “we have literally no idea” is just straight up not true, just because you don’t know doesn’t mean nobody does. There have been a lot of papers on the subject lately, though it’s true we don’t fully understand it.

What we can easily figure out from black box analysis of our brain is this: when making a decision or when thinking, there is the initial input that causes us to have that thought, context, memory and previous thought progress (or CoT to keep things simple) bring used.

LLMs replicates all this, and given the same input, produces the same output as a human at an ever-increasing rate, these days often better in specific and limited fields. What does it matter if the internal algorithm isn’t the exact same?

Besides, you do know you can run an AI on human brain cells, right? Saying “your brain doesn’t run the same way a computer does” when we can literally put a computer in a brain…

I’m not sure how that’s related to what I said. Please bring an argument or something.

As for your videos, this is obviously using the dumb models, they wouldn’t have the budget to use decent ones, so not sure what’s your point here either.

The box office, I wouldn’t know, but friends? At least once. Which isn’t much, but it’s one time more than AI.

Well I’ll be damned, someone who actually understand how LLMs work, on this platform? That’s a first.

I wasn’t talking about the marketing, I read the papers.

The thing is, we’re pretty much doing the same when we think. There are plenty of convincing papers and theories that tie advanced intelligence to language. I don’t understand why everyone assumes that “predicts next tokens means it can’t be intelligent” when in reality humans do just that when they talk and think.

If you’re ever learned a second language through immersion you’ll know the feeling of stringing a sentence together just from having seen enough similar ones, even if your sentence is technically brand new. That word right there feels just right, even if you don’t know the logic why. How is that any different from an LLM?

You don’t need AI for this. You can just ask a human, they’ll induce you in error just as often.

You do realize LLMs couldn’t even reason in 2024 right? Using sometimg that happened multiple eras ago (at the speed this is going) to push a narrative is a bit disingenuous.

Lemmy has, the public has not.

Lying? AGI is just an arbitrary marketing threshold, whether we’ve reached it or not is just a matter or opinion.