On Tue, Jun 18, 2024 at 2:04 PM John Clark <johnkcl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Tue, Jun 18, 2024 at 11:23 AM Terren Suydam <terren.suy...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > >> * LLMs are not AGI (yet), but it's hard to ignore they're (sometimes >> astonishingly) competent at answering multi-modal questions across most, if >> not all domains of human knowledge* >> > > I agree. > > > > >> *> Here's probably the best result >> <https://chatgpt.com/share/b4403435-e071-46ef-b1ce-ac1def2ce501> but I'm >> not sure there's anything actually novel there. Despite that, it's still >> quite impressive, and to John's point, it's clearly an intelligent >> response, even if there are aspects of "cheating off of humans" in it. * >> > > Concerning the cheating off humans question; Isaac Newton was probably the > closest the human race ever got to producing a transcendental genius, and > nobody ever accused him of being overly modest, but even Newton admitted > that if he had seen further than others it was only because "he stood on > the shoulders of giants". Human geniuses don't start from absolute zero, > they expand on work done by others. Regardless of how brilliant an AI's > answer is, if somebody is bound and determined to belittle the AI they can > always find **something** in the training data that has some relationship > to the answer, however tenuous. Even if the AI wrote a sonnet more > beautiful than anything of Shakespeare's, they can still claim that the > sonnet, like everything in literature, concerns objects (and people) and > how they move, and there are certainly things in its training data about > the arrangement of matter and energy in spacetime, in fact EVERYTHING in > its training data is about the arrangement of matter and energy in > spacetime. And therefore writing a beautiful sonnet was not a creative act > but was just the result of "mere memorization". > John K Clark See what's on my new list at Extropolis > <https://groups.google.com/g/extropolis> > I would never claim that the works of trascendental geniuses like Newton & Einstein, or for that matter, Picasso & Dali, did not derive from earlier works. What I'm saying that *they* did, which I doubt very much current LLMs can do, is to break ground into novel territory in whatever territory. I'm not trying to belittle current LLMs, but it seems important to understand their limitations especially because nobody, not even their creators, seems to really understand why they're as good as they are. And just as importantly, why they're as bad as they are at some things given how smart they are in other ways. Terren -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAMy3ZA99toTiJ9YahG-8BwJhWO%3DJ72u6oy2HFQuOa0ROo92VDg%40mail.gmail.com.
