@lkedves1 day ago
25+ years in working with AI (NOT the current chatbot bubble) and the true pioneers of informatics say: it does not matter how far you go into a dead end street because you did not even know that there were maps showing where to go. The question is: when do you realise the mistake and turn back from it... (no problem if you delete this comment, just a minority report)
@rwlurk1 day ago
there is no insatiable demand for AI, but there is insatiable demand from investors for more growth in tech stocks, which are propping up the USA's security markets
@Abouttime-p8u4 hours ago
@lkedves it just might be too lste by then... AI makes work so much easier though, 10 hours of work turn into 1
@Abouttime-p8u4 hours ago
@rwlurk My reply: Have you seen how many billions of pare using AI? Just from the time ChatGPT started to a year later it tremendous growth. Sure, there is also a lot of demand from stock investors interested in companies related to AI.
@lkedves27 minutes ago (edited)
@Abouttime-p8u Ironically, you are right but maybe not for the reason you think. Social media is not a big fan of facts and real science, I try to be as lightweight as possible here. Let's quote Alan Turing, highlighting the keys that nobody seem to read.
---
1. The Imitation Game
I propose to consider the question, "Can machines think?" This should begin with definitions of the meaning of the terms "machine" and "think". The definitions might be framed so as to reflect so far as possible the normal use of the words, but this attitude is dangerous, If the meaning of the words "machine" and "think" are to be found by examining how they are commonly used it is difficult to escape the conclusion that the meaning and the answer to the question, "Can machines think?" is to be sought in a statistical survey such as a Gallup poll. But this is absurd. Instead of attempting such a definition I shall replace the question by another, which is closely related to it and is expressed in relatively unambiguous words.
The new form of the problem can be described in terms of a game which we call the 'imitation game."
---
Understand?
Turing stated that both the goals and the means of this current "mainstream AI" are absurd. The "imitation game" does not answer the question if machines can think but replaces it. Turing wrote this article in the Mind (a Quarterly Review on Psychology and Philosophy !) to explain why people should stop calling the Universal Turing Machine a "thinking machine". I don't think he could imagine that a whole industry will be based on misinterpreting the first page (and completely ignoring the next 21) Or rather, just quoting Benedict Cumberbatch from the movie because he is so cute. Scientists...
I have spent good 25 years on finding a definition of these terms on par with the UTM. I follow Douglas Engelbart, a mentioned pioneer when read AI as Augmenting Intellect, because his forgotten results hold the key. My daily job is to deliver solutions to "impossible missions" in real life with real deadlines and restricted budgets, not hype riding.
The ratio is not 10 to 1 but 1 to 0.
On the other hand, social media defines "thinking" as skimming over the popular news following the latest hypes (including videos like this), conduct some excited discussions with relatable buddies in your idea bubble and regurgitate some word salad as your well-founded opinion. And you are absolutely right.
LLMs can do this much better than 10 to 1.
But, there is a question. Is this second path really worth billions of dollars and terawatts of consumption?
Back in the days before LinkedIn turned to a GeekBook, I picked up a quote that still holds today:
I suppose one way for a machine to pass the Turing test is to wait until the quality of actual human conversation is so bad that a bot could be an improvement. This seems to be happening here.
Peace...
---- Interestingly, the first comment remained public and got a response to it ----
I've been thinking about this in addition to a "maximum wage" in the USA. Thinking of ceilings for progress. I'm becoming ever-more convinced that we should impose ceilings as a society, to slow the rate of progress for the sake of security and happiness.
EACC folks (effective accelerationists) encourage us to barrel forward because AGI will solve all of our problems. I have extreme doubts. We will see how it okays out.
Quite the opposite. If you understand that our monetary system is based on exponential functions (the definition of the yearly interest on your bank deposit, or the GDP), combine it with enough elementary mathematics or informatics to know what it means, you realise that there is no ceiling. The repeated hype-rides and falls are simple consequences of the systemic ignorance, under various, sometimes bittersweet ideologies.
I often watch The Big Short, you only have to replace the few words and get the AGI story - the two mortgage brokers are just like Sammy boy and the whoever that showed the site to Emily. I play a mix of Mark Baum and Michael Burry. Informatics offered a solution but the middle men took over, check Joseph Weizenbaum, the creator of the first chatbot, ELIZA, 1966. For contrast, Softbank invested in all hypes so far: Theranos, FTX, WeWork... I would rather consider that a red flag. Let alone, a praise from Trump.
I wonder if Bloomberg shadow bans this comment individually, or I am banned as a person. Testing, testing...
😉
