We actually understand AI quite well. It embeds questions and answers in a high dimensional space. Sometimes you get lucky and it splices together a good answer to a math problem that no one’s seriously looked at in 20 years. Other times it starts talking about Goblins when you ask it about math.

Comparing it to an alien intelligence is ridiculous. McKenna was right that things would get weird. I believe he compared it to a carnival circus. Well that’s exactly what we got.

▲

jeremyjh 2 hours ago | parent [-]

We understand the low level math quite well. We do not understand the source of emergent behavior.

https://arxiv.org/html/2210.13382v5#abstract

	▲	bondarchuk 38 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		There's no end to arguing with someone who claims they don't understand something, they could always just keep repeating "nevertheless I don't understand it"... You could keep shifting the goalposts for "real understanding" until one is required to hold the effects of every training iteration on every single parameter in their minds simultaneously. Obviously "we" understand some things (both low level and high level) to varying degrees and don't understand some others. To claim there is nothing left to know is silly but to claim that nothing is understood about high-level emergence is silly as well.