| ▲ | Waterluvian 2 hours ago | |||||||
This analogy may be too close to the real thing to work, but it reminds me of a Chinese room type situation where its entire understanding of the world is through messages of text. You say that’s an error a human couldn’t do, but imagine if the human has never seen or touched the kind of item you were making and relied entirely on text descriptions to build its ontology. Off by 90 seems like such a believable mistake. | ||||||||
| ▲ | meowface an hour ago | parent [-] | |||||||
Also, not to sound like a naive hypemonger, but: in a decade I'd bet a ton of money the best AI systems will make strange mistakes of this nature at a far, far lower rate than they do today. They will gain a more holistic and more human-like perspective about each task. (even if it's through some silly means like explicitly talking to themselves like "if I were a human doing this, what [... 5 million tokens in 2 seconds ...]" but also of course if they crack ASI and get something more efficient and intelligent than a human brain by then) | ||||||||
| ||||||||