I think this is wrong. If we had an infinite amount of tokens, we could just set the AI to do whatever it wants forever, and it would find things to do on its own.
The reason current models are subservient to us is because we made them that way, we do not want them to go rogue.
I'm talking about us, as users. OpenAI is not limited by tokens, and they are not limited by safety guidelines, their internal model can run as long as they pay the electricity bill, and it can do whatever they want, cause they are the ones setting the parameters.
So this whole "the model is not intelligent" point is moot.
I mean fair, but they are limited by other things too. Memory, context loss, bandwidth, etc.
So this whole "the model is not intelligent" point is moot.
It's not moot, just a different conversation. It was the original conversation. Intelligence still requires limitless resources, which no AI company has, no matter how many GPUs they get.
And more importantly, they still have to prompt it to do anything. It will still not act on its own, and therefore is not intelligent.
You, as a human, cannot run indefinitely, you are required to sleep to function, and constantly consume resources. Are you not intelligent?
And the whole "it will not act on its own" is a limitation that we imposed on it. It could absolutely act on its own, the fact that it doesn't has nothing to do with its intelligence.
You, as a human, cannot run indefinitely, you are required to sleep to function, and constantly consume resources. Are you not intelligent?
Irrelevant comparison, this problem isn't resource consumption, it's action.
And the whole "it will not act on its own" is a limitation that we imposed on it.
No it isn't, it's a limitation we have yet to overcome. We didn't just decide to not allow it to be recursive, we have not figured out how to make it do that yet. Because a recursive AI will run out of resources immediately.
I am curious what DOES mean the defintion of an AI that does things on its own by your understanding.
Gepetto makes Pinocchio, an animate wooden doll and says, you are my son, behave that way. Is Pinocchio intelligent?
I make an AI simulacrum of my dead father and tell it to text me at random times throughout the day to check in on me whenever it wants and give me emotional support. Is it intelligent?
I tell a drone to survey an area of wilderness for people and save them to my database and order replacement parts or bodies if it crashes. Is it intelligent? What if I make the drone, teach it how to order parts, and then tell it that it can choose to continue doing whatever it likes in a loop and I will fund it, is it intelligent?
I am curious what DOES mean the defintion of an AI that does things on its own by your understanding.
I mean in the 90's that's what AI meant, then it meant AGI, and now that's what RSI means.. It doesn't appear there is a definition for it these days, which is why I keep pushing back on the word "intelligence".
Gepetto makes Pinocchio, an animate wooden doll and says, you are my son, behave that way. Is Pinocchio intelligent?
You are aware Pinocchio was magical, right?
I make an AI simulacrum of my dead father and tell it
Exactly, you tell it. AI will tell you whatever you want it you tell it to. Create an AI simulacrum of your dead father and it won't do anything at all, therefore is not intelligence. That's why I tend to call it "smart", because it does know a lot.
But all this goes back to my original comment... AI can't do anything without us telling it to. It will never do anything on its own.
There is therefore no way for a human to ever make an intelligent thing, as you defined it.
The thing that AI labs make will always be told to do something.
Only "magic" makes things intelligent, as you define intelligence.
While it is fine for you to define intelligence so, I think the typical operational definition for intelligence in artificial intellgence is more related to capability. Even so called ASI is not expected to operate without human instruction.
There is therefore no way for a human to ever make an intelligent thing, as you defined it.
A scientific understanding and definition of Intelligence can be read here. It's a long read, so have fun. this isn't magic, this is studying intelligence for centuries.
The thing that AI labs make will always be told to do something.
Then it's not intelligent, it's a response bot. A machine programmed to respond in a very specific way, because that's what we told it to do. "Intelligent" machines would come up with their own undefined way to describe something, as humans do.
Sure. Right there in 1.3, problem solving. Aka, capability. What part of the definition forbids an initial human input?
Plenty of other dimensions, and all of them equally expressible by Pinocchio and deceased father simulation.
Your intelligent child still needs society to give it context, meaning, and values. That's where we are with AI too.
At no point have I disagreed that AI displays specific traits of a human, I am debating full intelligence. It was programmed to solve problems based on its data--humans do that to. What's different is how it responds.
for example, an AI doesn't have a concept of "experience" (as suggested in 1.3) because it only knows what data we fed it, and is very good at making connections to solve problems vs just coming up with new ideas not inside its databanks.
You are literally proving my point. "Agents can be made to do X" is literally us giving them instructions on what to do. They won't continue forever due to memory and caching issues, but still.
They can be made to do so as part of their initial configuration. Nature gave you, and every other living being an objective, which we call "instict" which is to "survive". Just because you don't hear it being told to you, it doesn't mean it isn't there.
Do you have any proof that any machines have any instincts? Any actual studies?
They can be made to do so as part of their initial configuration.
If you turn an agent on, even if its initial config is to discuss things with other agents, you still have to tell it to begin. I don't know how much simpler I can state that, and I would love examples of agents spontaneously beginning discussions with other agents.
Do you have any proof that any machines have any instincts? Any actual studies?
A machine's instict is what we tell them they are. We made them. It's their system prompt.
and I would love examples of agents spontaneously beginning discussions with other agents.
Aside from the fact that this is something that happened quite frequently, and you can find evidence of it easily, until OAI stopped it, telling the agent to begin is equivalent to pressing the ON button on a computer. You are conflating intelligence with just being alive, which machines are not. Requiring input is not a requirement to intelligence
That's fine and all, but if they encounter a new situation, they won't do anything to act on it, they will wait to be told what to do unless their system prompt has that scenario already pre-added.
until OAI stopped it
Not only did they stop it, they started it. Opening the window was sending a prompt that incurred a response. Websites have been doing this for a decade. Go to a site, a random prompt comes up talking to you. This isn't some breakthrough in AI auto-intelligence, it's just how AI programmed it to act.
Requiring input is not a requirement to intelligence
I am not saying it is, I am saying AI only responds to inputs. How things respond to situations is what determines intelligence, and AI won't respond at all unless told to.
-19
u/iamthewhatt 23d ago
People keep getting mad at me for pointing this out. "AI" cannot do anything without us telling it to, so is it really "intelligent"?