997
It's Breathtaking How Fast AI Is Screwing Up the Education System (gizmodo.com)
submitted 1 year ago by to c/technology@lemmy.world
359 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 0 points 1 year ago (1 child)

And still nothing peer reviewed to show?

Synethic benchmarks mean nothing. I don't care how much context someone can store, when the context being stored is putting glue on pizza.

Again, I'm looking for some academic sources (doesn't have to be stem, education would be preferred here) that the current tech is close to useful.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    You made huge claims using a non peer reviewed preprint with garbage statistics and abysmal experimental design where they put together 21 bikes and 4 race cars to bury openAI flagship models under the group trend and go to the press with it. I'm not going to go over all the flaws but all the performance drops happen when they spam the model with the same prompt several times and then suddenly add or remove information, while using greedy decoding which will cause artificial averaging artifacts. It's context poisoning with extra steps i.e. not logic testing but prompt hacking.

    This is Apple (that is falling behind in its AI research) attacking a competitor with fake FUD and doesn't even count as research, which you'd know if you looked it up and saw you know, opinions of peers.

    You're just protecting an entrenched belief based on corporate slop so what would you do with peer reviewed anything? You didn't bother to check the one you posted yourself.

    Or you post corporate slop on purpose and now trying to turn the conversation away from that. Usually the case when someone conveniently bypasses absolutely all your arguments lol.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Okay, here's a non apple source since you want it.

    https://arxiv.org/abs/2402.12091

    5 Conclusion In this study, we investigate the capacity of LLMs, with parameters varying from 7B to 200B, to com- prehend logical rules. The observed performance disparity between smaller and larger models indi- cates that size alone does not guarantee a profound understanding of logical constructs. While larger models may show traces of semantic learning, their outputs often lack logical validity when faced with swapped logical predicates. Our findings suggest that while LLMs may improve their logical reason- ing performance through in-context learning and methodologies such as COT, these enhancements do not equate to a genuine understanding of logical operations and definitions, nor do they necessarily confer the capability for logical reasoning.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Another unpublished preprint that hasn't published peer review? Funny how that somehow doesn't matter when something seemingly supports your talking points. Too bad it doesn't exactly mean what you want it to mean.

    "Logical operations and definitions" = Booleans and propositional logic formalisms. You don't do that either because humans don't think like that but I'm not surprised you'd avoid mentioning the context and go for the kinda over the top and easy to misunderstand conclusion.

    It's really interesting how you get people constantly doubling down on specifically chatbots being useless citing random things from google but somehow Palantir finds great usage in their AIs for mass surveillance and policing. What's the talking point there, that they're too dumb to operate and that nobody should worry?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    As apposed to the nothing you've cited that context tokens actually improve reasoning?

    I love how you keep going further and further away from the education topic at hand, and now brining in police survalinece, which everyone knows is 100% accurate.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    You're less coherent than a broken LLM lol. You made the claim that transformer-based AIs are fundamentally incapable of reasoning or something vague like that using gimmicky af "I tricked the chatbot into getting confused therefore it can't think" unpublished preprints (while asking for peer review). Why would I need to prove something? LLMs can write code, that's an undeniable demonstration that they understand abstract logic fairly well that can't be faked using probability and it would be a complete waste of time to explain it to anyone who is either having issues with cognitive dissonance or less often may be intentionally trying to spread misinformation.

    Are the AIs developed by Palantir "fundamentally incapable" of their demonstrated effectiveness or not? It's a pretty valid question when we're already surveilled by them but some people like you indirectly suggest that this can't be happening. Should people not care about predictive policing?

    How about the industrial control AIs that you "critics" never mention, do power grid controllers fake it? You may need to tell Siemens, they're not aware their deployed systems work. And while on that, we shouldn't be concerned about monopolies controlling public infrastructure with closed source AI models because they're "fundamentally incapable" to operate?

    I don't know, maybe this "AI skepticism" thing is lowkey intentional industry misdirection and most of you fell for it?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    My larger point, AI replacing teachers is at least a decade away.

    You've given no evidence that it is. You've just said you hate my sources, while not actually making a single argument that it is.

    You said well it stores context, but who cares? I showed that it doesn't translate to what you think, and you said you don't like, without providing any evidence that it means anything beyond looking good on a graph.

    I've said several times, SHOW ME ITS CLOSE. I don't care what law enforcement buys, because that has nothing to do with education.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    I never said its going to replace teachers or that it "stores context" but your sloppily googled preprints to support your "fundamentally can't reason" statement were demonstrably garbage. You didn't say even once "show me it's close" but you think you said several times. Either your reading comprehension is worse than an LLM and you wildly confabulate, which means an LLM could replace you or you're a bot. Anyway, so far you proved nothing and already said they can write code, it's a non trivial cognitive task that you can't perform without several higher order abilities so cope and seethe I guess.

    So, what about Palantir AI? Is that also "not close"? Why are you avoiding surveillance AI? They're both neural networks. Some are LLMs.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 child)

    I said AI isn't close in education. That was my entire claim

    I never said anything about any other company. I said AI in education isn't happening soon. You keep pulling in other sectors.

    I've also had several comments in this thread before you came in saying that.

    EDIT: give me a citation that LLMs can reason for code. Because in my experience as someone that professionally codes with AI (copilot) it's not capable at that. It's guess what it thinks I want to write in small segments.

    https://x.com/leojr94_/status/1901560276488511759

    Espcially when it has a nasty habit of leaking secrets.

    EDIT2 forgot to say why I'm ignoring other fields. Because we're not talking about AI in those fields. We're talking education and search engines at best. My original comment was that AI generated educational papers still serve their original purpose.

    What the fuck does that have to do with anything to do with plaintair?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Your claim was this, "supported" by some corporate unpublished preprint (which is really funny considering you have the nerve to ask for citations):

    It can't. It just fucking can't. We're all pretending it does, but it fundamentally can't.

    You don't need a citation for LLMs being able to "reason for code", doubting AI coding abilities is delusional online yapping considering how documented it is since its deployed all over the place so how about you prove that being able to write code and do things like control flow, conditionals etc can be done without reason. Try doing that instead of spamming incoherent replies.

    Nobody cares if you're a professional vibe coder all of a sudden, if you can't code without copilot maybe you shouldn't have an opinion based on Apple's "research".

    But until then, are Palantir's AIs fundamentally incapable of reasoning? Yes or no? None of you anti-AI warriors are clear, should we not worry about corporate AI surveillance because apparently AI isn't really "I" or not? Simple question, but maybe ask copilot for help. But you seem bugged when it comes to corporate propaganda contradictions, it's really interesting.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •