[u385639]

Of course it would be easier. I agree. I just take issue with the "why humans" thing because if anything, the recent advancements highlight just how big the human element really is.

Can you imitate a Bach prelude? Sure. And only people who aren't actually familiar with his music would be impressed.

Much of AI approaching "human performance", is it approaching the lowest bar. There's a Wittgenstein thing going on here. That an LLM can ace the LSAT or GMAT is mostly an indictment of those tests.

A little off topic.

[famouswaffles]

>That an LLM can ace the LSAT or GMAT is mostly an indictment of those tests.

These kind of comments are always the funniest. You can just tell the person who makes them has never looked at those tests nevermind attempted them.

[u385639]

I scored 159 on the LSAT in 2014, so I am not claiming the tests are easy. I am pointing out that when an AI aces them, it says more about the test than anything else.

[famouswaffles]

No it doesn't lol because you can insert any test you like into your equation. GPT-4 performs well above average on almost anything you throw at it.

"Says more about [insert test]" is not an intelligent argument. It doesn't even make sense. Can you tell me exactly what this mysterious thing is ?

If you have this secret test for "true" intelligence and understanding the entire world is missing on then please share it with us and get your acclaim.

[u385639]

We must be speaking past each other. I am not out for acclaim and sorry for any confusion. Everything you say is exactly the point I'm trying to make, evidently clumsily. The "mysterious thing" is the human element. I don't know what else to call it? Humans that ace tests prove only that they are good at acing tests. Not that they're good at running businesses or practicing law. Not creating films (in this example), or music, etc.

I am not knocking the advancements, the capabilities are incredible. But machines have been doing what humans cannot since the dawn of time. I'm just pointing out what I think (thought?) was obvious: machines will soon be able to do just about everything that doesn't really matter.

PS. are you familiar with Wittgensteins ruler? Ask chatGPT about it.

[famouswaffles]

I didn't say test to mean just standardized tests lol. I meant that as problems you throw at it.

Sure seem good enough at law that multiple of the biggest law firms have partnered with Open ai backed Harvey https://twitter.com/ai__pub/status/1644735555752853504 https://www.lawnext.com/2023/04/harvey-ai-raises-21m-in-a-se...

and then there's what microsoft are doing with 4 in medicine. https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2023/04/gpt-4...

There is no "human element" lol. That's the point. That's how you know the argument has no ground. People resort to "human element" when they have nothing to actually say. and because "human element" has no meaning, the goal posts for it just keeps getting moved further and further. apparently now we're at "make the godfather".

[u385639]

I'm not a critic of AI or moving any goal posts. I'm not lobbing comments in a vacuum. I was responding directly to the comical proposal that we don't need actors anymore, to which my Godfather comment has every relevance. Thanks anyway!