AIkonoklazt

There's a very long list of people on my LinkedIn feed that have been frustrated by the seemingly unending and unrelenting hype surrounding LLMs. I think all of us are basically exhausted at this point from the continual exasperation. I attended the annual Stochastic Parrots Day celebration on the 2nd anniversary of Bender's paper via Twitch, and it looks like they do have a recording of the different sessions: https://peertube.dair-institute.org/w/p/5k7JempgUbCAcpTjUZPuKQ The panel on worker exploitation is rather prescient considering the later Hollywood actors' and screenwriters' strikes stemming from generative AI: https://www.theverge.com/2023/7/13/23794224/sag-aftra-actors-strike-ai-image-rights https://www.polygon.com/23742770/ai-writers-strike-chat-gpt-explained There was a Google docs from the event where all the attendants submit links relevant to the topic. I put my link on there along with some other articles I've collected but I'll need to go look for the URL of the sheet.

I'm showing you how your "argument" doesn't make sense by pointing out that all those "thousands" deployed every week are relying on the same essential tech. Thanks for showing us all that you definitely didn't understand my argument, if you read it at all. Formalism doesn't depend on any version of any tech.

You're very welcome. If you don't want to start following people on LinkedIn, you can use this article as a starter: https://theconversation.com/why-a-computer-will-never-be-truly-conscious-120644 It's also a collection of arguments like mine, except it talks about a different set of arguments including Turing's own Halting Problem. Have fun.

Your Huggingface links proves my point. Which of those don't use transformers? Ah, someone talking about "performance (metrics)". It doesn't mean jack squat. You can move those metrics around all you want to show whatever you please, up to and including any purported but non-existent "emergent behaviors," because that's the topic at the moment- a novel feature that would make anything before it "obsolete": https://arxiv.org/pdf/2304.15004.pdf No; none of what you supplied supported your unfounded claims of obsolescence. Hope you saw the irony in your own chiding regarding generalizations, because uh, that's what you also did in a spectacular fashion with your "gameboy" comments.

In addition to what TheVat just said, there are long lists of search results that you could look up on this yourself, including this one: https://perpet.io/blog/which-ai-tool-to-pick-for-your-next-project-chatgpt-llama-google-bard-claude/ The above talks about products by MS/OpenAI, Google, and Meta. I've seen discussions around ones that are still in development on LinkedIn, and they ALSO operate on the same basic principle (see section "The main mechanism of LLM-based AI tools" in the article) Now, please substantiate what you said. As for your statement regarding "thousands of new LLMs" each week, I don't think that's really true either, since the bulk of new LLM tools coming out are based on existing models (versions of GPT, and open-sourced ones like Llama)

I don't think you know why I mentioned the paper. Every LLM out on the market right now operate on the same "self-attention" principle detailed in that 7 year old paper. None of those are "badly outdated." Again, I don't know what prompted you to say what you said. I don't think you knew what you were talking about. Please substantiate your statements.

The intelligence of an organism does not guide its evolution, since intelligence is an attribute of the organism and not an attribute of the environment that's "doing the selecting."

I don't know what prompted you to say that. The paper "Attention Is All You Need" is around 7 years old now.

I can't say anything definitive right now because I haven't seen any real literature out there about it, but unless it somehow breaks out of formalism I can't see it happening. Wolfram did a very good job explaining LLMs here: https://writings.stephenwolfram.com/2023/02/what-is-chatgpt-doing-and-why-does-it-work/ A "feature" discussed therein isn't any specific idea/concept as a referent; It isn't any "cat-ness" of a cat or "ear-ness" of an ear, for example. Instead of "thing-ness" it's more like "mathematical-text-labelled-signal-value-correspondence level", in which this level can be easily manipulated using adversarially-generated samples (in the case of image identifcation, pixels invisible to the naked eye):

I agree with iNow regarding how the term "subconscious" is largely useless. I would say what makes the practical difference between AI and human would be referents. Algorithms, by their nature, can't refer to anything. This is one of the examples in my article I used to illustrate: In other new happenings, Bishop read my article and this is what he had to say: I missed the part where Searle said that CRA applies to any formalism in a machine, and not just symbols. So I didn't broaden CRA's scope when I talked about it. What I did was just making it harder for its detractors to argue against (e.g. certain criticisms directed toward CRA for including a 3rd person and/or a specific language)

No. The process of natural evolution isn't guided by anything. The overall environment responsible for both retiring organisms and allowing them to survive should not be considered to be intelligent i.e. the organisms may be intelligent, but the environment isn't.

@npts2020 swansont explained it in the originating thread:

Thread was split. Let me requote there.

You've pointed out that the term "evolve" can simply mean "change." If that's the way the term is used, then I have no issues with it. However, that's not the way some "offending" articles use the term. They portray it as a process that's not manually guided: Algorithmic operations are always guided by the creators of those algorithms. Yes, the thread is about unguided evolution. What I'm saying is that if something doesn't actually involve unguided evolution, then it shouldn't be portrayed as if it is. Again, I was honestly engaging and still am. When I know I'm specifically being asked of something, I'm more than happy to answer. I'm assuming the thread is about unguided evolution. That is, changes over time that are not the result of design decisions.

I don't know what you're talking about. I don't like it when people keeps accusing me of bad engagement when I'm honestly engaging. You don't read my mind and I don't yours. Let's get back to what exact issue is under dispute here, namely a titular claim of certain articles that artifacts do things "by itself" or "by themselves." What does the process of evolution have to do with whether an object possess agency or not?

I don't see any connection between RNG and possession of agency, which is the issue with terms like "by itself." I'm using Webster https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/artifact Those cells aren't built ground-up and thus are not artifacts. I discount the broad term "modification" since any person would then become an artifact as soon as they get a tattoo or even change hairstyle. As an side: I see many publications (including engineering ones) that use the term "evolution" and "change over time" interchangeably, which I object to. In certain contexts it can be misleading. I'm not side-stepping. I'm happy to provide definitions when asked. Please do not level accusations. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/agency/ As stated above, intentionality must be involved in agency. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/intentionality/

A machine doesn't have any agency, during its construction and programming, or after. It won't suddenly possess agency after its design process.

I don't see how that applies to the analogy, since neither marble nor machine gains agency after it leaves human hands.

I used a marble as an example of an artifact. All machines are artifacts. I wasn't sure if splitting threads involve actually removing messages from one thread and placing them in another.

The article I linked to had a titular claim which is a misattribution of agency to a machine.

split Topic: Artifacts such as machines can never do anything "on its own."

Which part do you refer to which isn't subject to algorithmic operation? Human neurons aren't results of design, and thus are not artifacts. It doesn't matter. You can't roll a marble on a table and attribute agency to it after it leaves your hand. Since I've admitted that the term "evolution" can denote simple "change," I am derailing the topic- Maybe this thread can be split.

He didn't arse himself with the prime rule in the first place, which freed me from it.

My response is for anyone else who may feel trapped and obligated to read. No. I'm blocking him because he's losing his marbles (e.g. feeling trapped by me merely posting to this thread, or whatever that's bugging him)

Dunno about other people but you can't pay me enough in hazard to be on that front line