Recent content by jack action

If you don't know me by now by Harold Melvin and the Blue Notes: By Simply Red:

What is deliberate is the introduction of randomness into a neural network to mimic human conversations or their artistic side. But human conversations and art are not the only uses for AI - which has no randomness to begin with, just statistical analysis. So, if one were to design an AI to...

Brains are changing over time, so you will not repeat the same process twice. A neural network state can be determined (no matter how complex it is) and reproduced. If you have machine learning - i.e., the neural network modifies its own parameters - the process becomes even more complex. In...

It is still a fixed parameter and, once determined, repeating the calculations should yield the same results. If the data and parameters are the same, repeating the same prompts, in the same order, should give the same results.

With ordinary software, a bug can also be a question of quality control: we haven't analyzed what a user might input into a program. For example, a user enters "0" for their age, and the programmer never considered someone doing so. The result is that a division by zero happens somewhere...

It is "unpredictable" because the bugs are harder to find. ChatGPT-4 is estimated to have roughly 1.8 trillion parameters. Good luck finding which combination of these parameters is causing the unwanted hallucination.

Maybe not in literature, but the test was brought up in this thread as proof that AI is intelligent: I must admit I worry about the direction this discussion takes. Just to be clear: I don't think AI is self-aware, conscious, or has intentions. If a definition of intelligence refers to...

Well, anyone who wants to see intelligence in a machine can just say: "It is intelligent because it fooled me." Not a very scientific method in my opinion. But can "its best shot" be done with a tool he made? What is the difference between those two statements: Can a human fly? No. What if he...

From Wikipedia [bold emphasis mine]: Can the human evaluator use a tool to help him do the job? If he is nearsighted and both text transcripts look equally blurry to the point he cannot distinguish them, then as the machine passed the test? Or can the human evaluator wear glasses to help him...

There is a big flaw in the Turing test: It is assumed that the judge is a simple human. But what if the judge is using AI for assistance or for doing the job entirely? If AI is so efficient, it should be able to detect AI. It should be able to detect the patterns coming from a neural network...

Now that we know what you think, let's see what the experts have to say about the Turing test: But even 21st-century AI researchers consider simple machines having intelligence [bold emphasis mine]: There are five classes of intelligent agents, and a thermostat is considered a simple reflex...

It sounds more simplistic than logic, especially without definitions of "intelligent" or "lie". To link a lie to intelligence, you must show intention, knowledge, and awareness of what someone (or something) does. No one think a child - even though they are intelligent - lies because an adult...

Yes, but sometimes regulations are used to enforce ethics to everyone. In Canada, we cannot do cloning by law: Nothing is dangerous per se in this, it is just pure ethics because most people feel unconfortable with the idea of creating a life form with genetic manipulations. Some people think...

The answer is right there: the LLMs can generate false information when they are asked to do it by the ill-intentioned humans who designed them. It is the humans who lie; they just use a machine to do it. Otherwise, you could say that a book lies as well. But we all know it is the writer who...

It is also a far cry from "AGI will inherit the Earth":