They are choosing to abstain from using artificial intelligence for environmental, ethical and personal reasons. Maybe they have a point, writes Guardian columnist Arwa Mahdawi
But yes. Exactly in the use of “Artificial Intelligence”.
Artificial Intelligence is a wide field, consisting of a plethora of methods. LLMs like ChatGPT are part of this wide field, as per definition how researchers are describing the field.
The “intelligence” part is an issue though if taken literal, since we have no clear definition of what “intelligence” even is. Neither for human / natural intelligence, nor for artificial. But that’s how the field was labled. We have created a category for a bunch of methods, models and algorithms and sticked “AI” onto it. Therefore I stand by what I have said before:
It is AI.
Due to the lack of a clear definition for “intelligence” I would coarsely outline AI as: mimicking natural thinking, problem solving and decision processes without necessarily being identical. (This makes it difficult to distinguish it from plain calculators though, so a better definition is required.) So if we have a model that is able to distinguish cat pictures from non-cat pictures, that’s AI. And if we have “autocorrect on steroids” (credit to Dirk Hohndel) like ChatGPT, that matches the text comprehension skills of 15 year olds (just an example), then this too is AI.
I was going to wholeheartedly endorse your comment and then you ruin it in the last sentence with
that matches the text comprehension skills of 15 year olds (just an example), then this too is AI.
It feels like you know what you are talking about, but then confuse the successful statistical analysis of text as “comprehension” which is just plain factually wrong.
One fundamental part of “intelligence” is being able to come up with independent thoughts. Another is to be able to think critically about those thoughts. LLMs cannot do either.
But yes. Exactly in the use of “Artificial Intelligence”.
Artificial Intelligence is a wide field, consisting of a plethora of methods. LLMs like ChatGPT are part of this wide field, as per definition how researchers are describing the field.
The “intelligence” part is an issue though if taken literal, since we have no clear definition of what “intelligence” even is. Neither for human / natural intelligence, nor for artificial. But that’s how the field was labled. We have created a category for a bunch of methods, models and algorithms and sticked “AI” onto it. Therefore I stand by what I have said before:
It is AI.
Due to the lack of a clear definition for “intelligence” I would coarsely outline AI as: mimicking natural thinking, problem solving and decision processes without necessarily being identical. (This makes it difficult to distinguish it from plain calculators though, so a better definition is required.) So if we have a model that is able to distinguish cat pictures from non-cat pictures, that’s AI. And if we have “autocorrect on steroids” (credit to Dirk Hohndel) like ChatGPT, that matches the text comprehension skills of 15 year olds (just an example), then this too is AI.
I was going to wholeheartedly endorse your comment and then you ruin it in the last sentence with
It feels like you know what you are talking about, but then confuse the successful statistical analysis of text as “comprehension” which is just plain factually wrong.
sad. so close though.
One fundamental part of “intelligence” is being able to come up with independent thoughts. Another is to be able to think critically about those thoughts. LLMs cannot do either.
Enjoy being downvoted for being right
I don’t care about votes. I just hope that people start to comprehend this field a tiny bit better .
They won’t, because their opinion is political and ideological, not technical