Dunno. Mass production was clearly a many-orders-of-magnitude improvement on the artisan model, yet still humans are needed.

We still call it the "industrial revolution".

▲

LightBug1 3 days ago | parent [-]

Fair.

My jury is still out as to whether the current models are proto-AI. Obviously an incredible innovation. I'm just not certain they have the potential to go the whole way.

/layman disclaimer

▲

falcor84 3 days ago | parent [-]

As you say, whether we call it "AI", or "doohickey", it is an incredible innovation. And I don't think that anyone is claiming at the moment that the systems as-is will themselves "go the whole way" - it is a technological advancement, that like all others should inspire practitioners to develop better future systems, that adapt some aspects of it.

Perhaps at some point we will see a self-propelling technological singularity with the AI developing its own successor autonomously, but that's clearly not the current situation.

▲

LightBug1 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

Doohickey is so much more relatable ... I may call LLM's that from now on. Thank you.

▲

bluefirebrand 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> And I don't think that anyone is claiming at the moment that the systems as-is will themselves "go the whole way"

Dunno but I see plenty of people making exactly this claim every day, even on this site

▲

kmoser 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

That will never happen. We may approach that state asymptotically but since AI output is stochastic, and humans' goals change over time, humans will always be part of the loop.

	▲	falcor84 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		Whatever the formula for the probability of recursive self-improvement of AI may be, I am unfortunately certain that the fickleness of human goals does not factor into it.