|
|
|
|
|
|
by Spivak
618 days ago
|
|
|
Why reserve them for humans? Is it more or less rational to assume that we have some special intangible spark? I think it is cool as hell that we can now make a machine that exhibits an emergent property previously only observed in living things. I'm not saying they're alive, conscious, sentient, or any of that stuff. Silly. It would actually be less interesting if that was the case, more of a breakthrough, but less interesting. A machine that can reason about a huge variety of topics and on data that is nothing like it's ever seen before is wild. Draw the line wherever you like, if you want to say that intelligence can't be meaningfully separated from stuff like self-awareness, memory, self-learning, self-consistency then that's fine. But is intelligence and reason really so special that you have to be a full being to exhibit it? |
|
|
My comment is predicated on the belief that yes, at this moment it is more rational to assume we have a special spark. Moreso, it’s irrational that individuals believe that in these models there’s a uniqueness beyond a few emergent properties. It’s a critique on the individuals, not the systems. I worry many of us are a few Altman statements short of having a Blake Lemoine break.
To look at our statistical models and say they exhibit “actual intelligence” concerns me that individuals are losing groundness with what we have in front of us.