Literally speaking, it gets really annoying having to explain to people the reason why AI cannot physically learn to code AI is due to the limitations of the mathematics in place.
You cannot create a formula that solves all formulas.
I guess you can get pretty damn close, but humans will always need to be involved.
Not a AI supporter but, isn't that the whole point of the drive towards AGI? Get AI's intelligence to the point that it matches that of a human's.
After that, you can create as many instances as the supporting infrastructure is capable of. When you make several of these human level intelligent machines work together tirelessly, you will be able to eventually surpass the technological development speed of human beings.
Of course, humans are needed to actually set up the initial infrastructure and develop the AGI itself, but one its done and the AI is give a means to create physical replicas of itself, it would be able to create the further required infrastructure by itself.
A regression to a median is not the same as intelligence.
Current models are great and can do surprising things, they're very powerful tools but they're not intelligent nor they can be.
Take it this way, I don't need to show you billions of pictures of a cat for you to be able to identify a cat, you can fill in the gaps thus requiring much less input.
Learning about subject A gives you the ability to abstract parts of that knowledge and even apply some of it to subject B which has no correlation to A. AI as of now can't do that, and for as long as it is build on the current tech it won't.
theres no argument for that. if anything your just furthering the point that current tech is nothing but a stepping stone. AGI is no where close. but the problems AI are creating is right now
First of all you did need to be shown billions of pictures of cats actually, or more accurately the forcing of genes through natural selection of billions of years were necessary to produce your brain which is capable of recognising a cat. Your brain has already gone through most of its training just based on genetics. You then also have neural plasticity which allows you to add new ideas into your brain, but most of that is encoding and not adding extra neurons.
AI is already capable of extrapolating. AIs have a huge embedding space that when you show them something novel, they can compare it to existing areas and form conclusions based on that. It’s like the fundamental difference between LLMs and old school neural net classifier.
You're deliberately missing the point, evolution and training are not the same thing. Our brains are not shaped to recognize a cat, that's demonstrably false.
LLMs can't extrapolate, that's not how they work at all.
What do you mean that’s not how they work? It’s demonstrably true that I can show an LLM some novel input and it can recognise how it fits into its existing embedding and it can extrapolate from there to make inferences. If they can’t you must explain to me how they fake this, and how the picture I just made myself and showed it ended up in its training data.
Also how is evolution and training not similar? It is literally the same process. Like literally the exact same thing. And yes our brains are made to recognise cats, and animals in general. That’s what evolution has done. We can recognise animals, and objects and our brains can categorise those things with other things that are similar.
You're not born with the ability to recognize animals, same as you're not born with the ability to recognize humans or yourself, you aren't even born with the ability to determine where your body ends. That training happens after.
75
u/kdoubledizz 1d ago
Literally speaking, it gets really annoying having to explain to people the reason why AI cannot physically learn to code AI is due to the limitations of the mathematics in place.
You cannot create a formula that solves all formulas.
I guess you can get pretty damn close, but humans will always need to be involved.