-18
What purpose will humans have when AI will be able to do all thinking for us? (lemmy.world)
submitted 6 hours ago by to c/asklemmy@lemmy.world
34 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Heard some people say that a so called "Human Zoo" is one of the best-case scenarios with pseudo-omniscient AI taking care of all of us. Supposedly that comes true, to what ends would humans continue to keep a population going, simply due to biological bias? You think humans would devolve in some way, or become intellectually atrophied?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [S] -3 points 5 hours ago (1 child)

It doesn’t know what red is. It doesn’t know what a dog is

This is very philosophical, but what is understanding of something? Isn't it just relationships between different concepts? LLM currently encode information similarly in their multidimensional vector space. Where a "dog" vector would be close to "animal" "pet" "breed" etc vectors and those in turn to other similar concepts and so on. How different is it from human way of understanding?

LLMs cannot do that. LLMs have to be retrained with data in a very specific format from the start

Sure, that is true right now. But in not-so-distant future, it is not unreasonable to assume AI would be able to improve itself without as much (or any) human intervention. For example it could streamline training, automatically collect new data from across the world in real time. Be able to access its own weights in the model, increase improvement efficiency possibly exponentially even.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 hours ago*

    Sure, that is true right now. But in not-so-distant future

    Today it is a statistical model

    Tomorrow it is a statistical model

    Check out the OpenAI peer review article on "AI Scaling Laws", although it had its math corrected by the staff of DeepMind later on it still more or less correctly predicted the performance of every model since and predicts that we're hitting a hard limit soon as training approaches infinite but returns become smaller and smaller. If you plot the performance as per their charts then the limit after INFINITE training with INFINITE sample data and INFINITE power used then you get about 94% accuracy, which is still less than any one singular human's capabilities. So why train it when you can just go and get a random human?

    Clearly this approach doesn't work.

    You mentioned a theoretical model which adjusts its own weights? We call that self-sampling which leads to feedback loops and model collapse.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent