| ▲ | keypusher 3 hours ago | |
Millions of years of evolutionary knowledge hard-coded into human systems, then it still takes 15+ years of us learning by example before we start to come online and be able to generalize solutions from a limited set of examples. I'm not sure this is as strong of an argument as you think it is. It also doesn't really matter when "we are trained differently" has no direct bearing on the end result. | ||
| ▲ | ben_w 3 hours ago | parent [-] | |
We invented controlled fire perhaps a million years ago; at a generation gap of 25 years, that's 40,000 opportunities for evolution to pass on a mutation that does anything. Written language is around 210 generations old, the capacity to read and write isn't present in our nearest living relatives amongst the primates, and our various languages are wildly different to each other: the skill itself isn't evolved, though the capacity to learn the skill is. If humans learned like ML systems learn, (biblical) Methuselah would still have been failing the Sally-Anne test on his supposed deathbed at 969 years old, like some of the smaller early LLMs did. > It also doesn't really matter when "we are trained differently" has no direct bearing on the end result. The question was to ask for a definition such that AI could still count as "not smart" compared to humans. This fits. It's also why they're spiky intelligences, which I'm happily using right now to write code for me, but also do not trust in the slightest to identify the weeds in my garden. These submarines sure do swim fast*, but they're also very much disqualified for the Olympics. | ||