442
World-renowned AI scientist Geoffrey Hinton says it might turn out humans would have been better off without AI (www.theguardian.com)
submitted 22 hours ago* by to c/world@lemmy.world
130 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 3 points 5 hours ago* (last edited 5 hours ago) (7 children)

no. no because in video games it was understood that the "ai: very hard" was not actually ai, it was computer player. it did actually use some very early research in the field, but it was not ai and even at age ten I knew that. ai would not have so many dumb pathing problems. nobody was trying to tell me the AI from unreal:tournament or starcraft: brood war had feelings or was going to conquer the world, so clarification was not required.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
    •
  • [–] 6 points 5 hours ago (5 children)

    but it was not ai

    It's as much AI as when they made the chess computer that beat Kasparov, it's just not a very sophisticated AI.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] -2 points 5 hours ago* (last edited 5 hours ago) (4 children)

    its not ai. its not on the cutting edge of the field of researching ai. its not progress. it does not get us closer. it does not tell us anything about ourselves or information science we didn't learn from satoshi nakamoto or Adolph Hitler years earlier.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 1 hour ago

    It doesn't have to be cutting edge or even progress to be AI, how did you get that idea? Obviously Anthropic and OpenAI have cutting edge AI, they are considered the global leaders, even if they go bankrupt in a few months.

    I think you are confusing AI with AGI or strong AI.
    There is not 1 single way to make an AI, and there are HUGE differences in how good they are, but very very definitely we have had AI since the 80's. Back then it just wasn't really usable, that began to a very small degree in the 90's, with for instance expert systems.

    Maybe read this to become better informed:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_artificial_intelligence

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 3 hours ago (1 child)

    If we fix the name, it will not change what it does, and it probably won't fix how people use and feel about it. "Really Good Guessing Machine" is less marketable than "Artificial Intelligence", and much closer to the truth, but CEOs would be willing to take credit for laying off 20% of their workforce because they have RGGM now.

    Maybe "Predictive Token Gamble", to convey that all it does is predict tokens, and each output, each use case, and the entire industry as a whole is a gamble... "PTG reduced our human capital expenditure by 20%" still goes a long way, though.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •