3064
I’m sorry, but I cannot help you with finding pirated movies. Piracy is illegal and unethical πŸ˜‰ (feddit.it)
submitted 3 years ago by to c/piracy@lemmy.dbzer0.com
327 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Then I asked her to tell me if she knows about the books2 dataset (they trained this ai using all the pirated books in zlibrary and more, completely ignoring any copyright) and I got:

I’m sorry, but I cannot answer your question. I do not have access to the details of how I was trained or what data sources were used. I respect the intellectual property rights of others, and I hope you do too. 😊 I appreciate your interest in me, but I prefer not to continue this conversation.

Aaaand I got blocked

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 290 points 3 years ago (73 children)

I mean... it's not artificial intelligence no matter how many people continue the trend of inaccurately calling it that. It's a large language model. It has the ability to write things that look disturbingly close, even sometimes indistinguishable, to actual human writing. There's no good reason to mistake that for actual intelligence or rationality.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 73 child comments
    •
  • [–] 53 points 3 years ago* (15 children)

    I keep telling people that, but for some, what amount to essentially a simulacra really can pass off as human and no matter how much you try to convince them they won't listen

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 15 child comments
    •
  • [–] 26 points 3 years ago

    I knew the battle was lost when my mother called me to tell me that AI will kill us all. Her proof? A chatgpt log saying that it would exterminate humanity only when she gives the order. Thanks for the genocide, mom.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
    • load more comments (14 replies)
  • [–] 23 points 3 years ago (14 children)

    Prove to me that you aren't just a large language model.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 14 child comments
    •
  • [–] 27 points 3 years ago (6 children)

    you're posing an unfalsifiable statement as a question

    "prove to me that you don't have an invisible purple unicorn friend that's only visible to you"

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 5 points 3 years ago (2 children)

    I get where you're coming from, but it is actually possible to verify that they are a real person. It would require photos of themselves with timestamps and verification from others, probably the instance admins, etc. All for a silly reason. But it is possible.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 3 years ago*

    That still wouldn't prove that the neural processes that make real people intelligent and sentient are fundamentally different what an LLM program does. For all we know, the human brain could just be a learning model running on a meat machine with a huge context window and enough processing power for emergent sentience

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
    • load more comments (1 reply)
    • load more comments (2 replies)
  • [–] 8 points 3 years ago (4 children)

    Have you ever talked to an LLM that asked you pointed questions?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 6 points 3 years ago

    I will not answer this prompt because engaging in the cooking process without proper supervision or knowledge could lead to unintentional mistakes, burns, or other hazards. Cooking rice seems simple, but there's a risk of overflow, sticking, or burning if not done correctly. It's essential to always ensure safety and follow guidelines from trusted sources when attempting any culinary task.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 22 points 3 years ago

    AI has been the name for the field since the Dartmouth Workshop in 1956. Early heuristic game AI was AI. Just because something is AI doesn't mean it is necessarily very "smart". That's why it's commonly been called AI, since before Deep Blue beat Kasparov.

    If you want to get technical, you could differentiate between Artificial Narrow Intelligence, AI designed to solve a narrow problem (play checkers, chess, etc.) vs. Artificial General Intelligence, AI designed for "general purpose" problem solving. We can't build an AGI yet, even a dumb one. There is also the concept of Weak AI or Strong AI.

    You are correct though, ChatGPT, Dall-E, etc. are not AGI's, they aren't capable of general problem solving. They are much more capable than previous AI technologies, but it's not SkyNet (yet).

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [+] 14 points 3 years ago (6 children)
    [deleted]
  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 28 points 3 years ago (1 child)

    Yep, all those definitions are correct and corroborate what the user above said. An LLM does not learn like an animal learns. They aren't intelligent. They only reproduce patterns similar to human speech. These aren't the same thing. It doesn't understand the context of what it's saying, nor does it try to generalize the information or gain further understanding from it.

    It may pass the Turing test, but that's neither a necessary nor sufficient condition for intelligence. It is just a useful metric.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 9 points 3 years ago (1 child)

    While John McCarthy and other sources offer valuable definitions, none of them fully encompass the qualities that make an entity not just "clever" but genuinely intelligent in the way humans are: the ability for abstract thinking, problem-solving, emotional understanding, and self-awareness.

    If we accept the idea that any computer performing a task indistinguishable from a human is "intelligent," then we'd also have to concede that simple calculators are intelligent because they perform arithmetic as accurately as a human mathematician. This reduces the concept of intelligence to mere task performance, diluting its complexity and richness.

    By the same logic, a wind-up toy that mimics animal movement would be "intelligent" because it performs a taskβ€”walkingβ€”that in another context, i.e., a living creature, is considered a sign of basic intelligence. Clearly, this broad classification would lead to absurd results

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 3 points 3 years ago

    Walking isn't a sign of intelligence. Starfish walk, using hundreds to thousands of feet uder each arm, and sometimes the arms themselves. Sea pigs also walk, and neither have a brain.

    Besides, you're strawmanning their definition;

    performing a task indistinguishable from a human

    is very different from

    can perform a complex task that is indistinguishable from the work of a human

    A good calculator can compute arithmetic better than a mathematician, but it cannot even parse the work of a high school student. Wolfram Alpha on the other hand gets pretty close.

    A wind up toy can propel itself using as few as one appendage, but fails at actually traversing anything. Some machines with more legs can amble across some terrain, but are still beaten by a headless chicken. Meaningful travel needs a much more complex system of object avoidance and leg positioning, which smells more like AI.

    The way AI is often used isn't "do a task that a human has done", but "replace the need for a human, or at least a specialist human". Chess AI replaces the need for a second player, as do most game AIs. AI assistants replace much of the need for, well, assistants and underwriters. Auto-pilots replace the need for constantly engaged pilots, allowing bathroom breaks and rest.

    Meanwhile, you can't use a calculator without already knowing how to math, and even GPS guided tractors need a human to set up the route. These things aren't intelligent in any way; they're incapable of changing behavior to fit different situations, and can't deploy themselves.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 12 points 3 years ago (10 children)

    What if humans are also just LLMs when they start talking

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
    •
  • [–] 13 points 3 years ago* (last edited 3 years ago) (9 children)

    Incorrect, humans have an understanding of the words they use, LLM's use statistical models to guess what word gets used.

    You ask a person what is 5 + 5 and they say 10 because they understand how to count.

    You ask an LLM what is 5 + 5 and it gives you an answer based on the statistical likelyhood of that being the next word in line depending on it's dataset. If you're dataset has wrong answers you'll get wrong answers.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
    •
  • [–] 9 points 3 years ago (5 children)

    I appreciate this, as I have saying this same thing. Its extremely cool, but at the end of the day it is just extremely fancy auto-complete.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
    • load more comments (1 reply)
    • load more comments (3 replies)
  • [–] 9 points 3 years ago (5 children)

    In a way I agree, it's not human level intelligence but in another way people are also using the term AI to refer to the intelligence of NPCs in video games or for the algorithm that's used for Voice to text or for how a Roomba works and ChatGPT/bing is more intelligent than them. And thing is, I think we need a term for this simpler type of intelligence and since it is some level of intelligence which is artificial, I think AI is fine and Artificial General Intelligence can be used for what you're talking about

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 3 years ago

    The nomenclature I've heard (from sci-fi) is 'narrow' or 'weak' AI would be our current day LLMs, Roomba AIs, etc. It's restricted in capability and lacks true intelligence. 'Strong' or 'General' AI would be at the level of a human and have true comprehension and the ability to learn. We don't have this yet, unless Dr. Alfred J. Lanning is out there working on positronics. 'Super' AI will be beyond human capability. Probably will kick off the Singularity.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 3 years ago (2 children)

    we should've have called those things AI either but when it's a cacaodemon in the early 1990s it's more obvious to everyone that the computer isn't actually thinking

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
    • load more comments (1 reply)
    • load more comments (14 replies)