this is how I generally perceive humans. some of them had a much higher exposure to topics (= learning cycles) and once proper abstractions are cached in the brain it feels like "understanding it" - which means being perceived as "intelligent" from the POV of others.
The human brain is some combination of data, comprehension/intellect, judgment/decision making and creativity/projection.
Current AI is a all data and statistics/pattern matching. There is no comprehension, decision making or creativity. Any appearance of understanding or judgment is a statistical reflection of the pre-classification of the training data fed to it.
There are no guarantees of any kind with the results. Expecting any sort of "truth" beyond database lookup and statistics would be a mistake in my opinion.
> the concept of AGI is inseparable from the kind of hierarchy of intelligence that has underpinned ideas of innate supremacy since the days of empire and colonialism
Is this bullshit?
> referring to AI's alleged potential for good should be dropped by acknowledging that the social benefits are still speculative while the harms have been empirically demonstrated
The empirical harms are mean tweets. But advancing medicine, law, productivity, etc are alleged.
> It's not so long ago that we all woke up to the identity of truly essential workers; the people carrying out the precaritised roles of nursing, teaching, caring, delivering and cleaning, the very professions who are being forced to reinvent the idea of the general strike simply to regain the conditions for survival. Instead of being complicit with expensive toys running in carbon emitting data centres, we can focus instead on centring activities of care
But care workers are going to be replaced by androids. Calling someone essential is virtue signalling, it says nothing about the person or job. Working in a hospice changing diapers of the demented isn't meaningful work.
4 comments
[ 2.7 ms ] story [ 21.0 ms ] threadIn other words, there is no real "intelligence" in AI as it currently exists.
It is simply a statistical mirror that reflects back the data used to train it --- without any real comprehension or understanding or veracity.
The results may seem plausible from a language perspective but expecting any sort of "truth" or accuracy will most likely lead to disappointment.
Current AI is a all data and statistics/pattern matching. There is no comprehension, decision making or creativity. Any appearance of understanding or judgment is a statistical reflection of the pre-classification of the training data fed to it.
There are no guarantees of any kind with the results. Expecting any sort of "truth" beyond database lookup and statistics would be a mistake in my opinion.
Is this bullshit?
> referring to AI's alleged potential for good should be dropped by acknowledging that the social benefits are still speculative while the harms have been empirically demonstrated
The empirical harms are mean tweets. But advancing medicine, law, productivity, etc are alleged.
> It's not so long ago that we all woke up to the identity of truly essential workers; the people carrying out the precaritised roles of nursing, teaching, caring, delivering and cleaning, the very professions who are being forced to reinvent the idea of the general strike simply to regain the conditions for survival. Instead of being complicit with expensive toys running in carbon emitting data centres, we can focus instead on centring activities of care
But care workers are going to be replaced by androids. Calling someone essential is virtue signalling, it says nothing about the person or job. Working in a hospice changing diapers of the demented isn't meaningful work.