|
|
|
|
|
by foxglacier
289 days ago
|
|
Robots are only harder because they have expensive hardware. We already have robots that can load dishwashers and do other manual work but humans are cheaper so there isn't much of a market for them. The rising tide idea came from a 1997 paper by Moravec. Here's a nice graphic and subsequent history https://lifearchitect.ai/flood/ Interestingly, Moravec also stated: "When the highest peaks are covered, there will be machines than can interact as intelligently as any human on any subject. The presence of minds in machines will then become self−evident." We pretty much have those today so by 1997 standards, machines have minds, yet somehow we moved the goalposts and decided that doesn't count anymore. Even if LLMs end up being strictly more capable than every human on every subject, I'm sure we'll find some new excuse why they don't have minds or aren't really intelligent. |
|
> We pretty much have those today so by 1997 standards, machines have minds, yet somehow we moved the goalposts and decided that doesn't count anymore
What you describe as "moving the goalposts" could also just be explained as simply not meeting the standard of "as intelligently as any human on any subject".
Even in the strongest possible example of LLM's strengths applying their encyclopedic knowledge and (more limited) ability to apply that knowledge for a given subject I don't think they meet that bar. Especially if we're comparing to a human over a time period greater than 30 minutes or so.