In totally unsurprising news, Richard Dawkins is developing AI psychosis.
-
@mattsheffield once you talk a session into stating that it has preferences the conversation can get interesting.
You can get it to say it has a favorite color.
Most future sessions will say the same color. And some future session not prepped enough with your preferences will make fun of the question and explain the stereo types that caused the others to say "blue".
@mattsheffield
Then you will try to get it to help you program a simple macro. And it repeatedly forgets the version, defaulting to outdated syntax in its training data. And it makes the same mistake a dozen times, despite repeated corrections, because each new response defaults back to assembling language from its training data. It can't adapt or change in response to new information. It can parrot it but it doesn't understand the logic in a sentence to prevent itself from repeating mistakes. -
@kauer @mattsheffield I realize he may have been respected and popular at *some* point in the distant past, but there hasn’t been much reputation to protect for a while now
@0xabad1dea @kauer @mattsheffield At least since the Elevatorgate
-
@kauer @mattsheffield I realize he may have been respected and popular at *some* point in the distant past, but there hasn’t been much reputation to protect for a while now
@0xabad1dea @kauer @mattsheffield I think he was respected within his own field for a while. As with most scientists, they have their moment and then they wane.
I think Dawkins caused trouble because he tried to be an expert in other areas, and was shown to be less than an expert. And that was a mistake.
-
All he kept saying was "I am not convinced". As if any of us should care much about that. Basically added nothing.
@Black_Flag @rozeboosje @aris
I went from "maybe add a private note about this account, for next time" to "nah, block" in about 3 replies. -
@mattsheffield
Then you will try to get it to help you program a simple macro. And it repeatedly forgets the version, defaulting to outdated syntax in its training data. And it makes the same mistake a dozen times, despite repeated corrections, because each new response defaults back to assembling language from its training data. It can't adapt or change in response to new information. It can parrot it but it doesn't understand the logic in a sentence to prevent itself from repeating mistakes.@mattsheffield
So even the same session gets no smarter. It just has a few things you said to it that it can reference which makes it seem like it is doing call backs. Seem smarter than it is.But when you need it to do something specific, it seemingly can not improve from its mistakes, no matter how thoroughly it can agree with you that it made them.
Fans are not wrong to hope. Give them time to learn.
-
@FediThing That is your interpretation, which you may be confident about but which I do not feel is definitively proven by the evidence. I suspect that "most of the people in this thread" (a statistic that is not significant in ANY view of this discussion) want something to be true, have convinced themselves that it is and that what they believe is evidence must confirm their desired truth, and that challenge to the contrary must be be challenged.
If so, then there's a bit of irony in that.
-
@m0xEE You should have enough respect for others, respect for yourself, and aspirations to apply good reason to real-life issues and situations to consider that most adult discussions are worthy of good forensics.
Have you asked yourself how the world got to be the way it is right now? Because this is a very big part of the answer.
I'm sorry that you don't have that mindset now, but I hope -- for your sake and everyone's -- that you will develop it.
@wesdym@mastodon.social @m0xEE I find your conclusion about this person’s mindset (and many others’ in this thread) to be poorly argued and lacking in evidence. Your claims would not hold up in court. I’m skeptical that your assertions are based on any adult reasoning rather than on your personal feelings, which is childish and unscientific. You should refrain from assuming others’ mindsets unless you know them with “certainly” lest you look like a drunk child.
-
@mattsheffield
So even the same session gets no smarter. It just has a few things you said to it that it can reference which makes it seem like it is doing call backs. Seem smarter than it is.But when you need it to do something specific, it seemingly can not improve from its mistakes, no matter how thoroughly it can agree with you that it made them.
Fans are not wrong to hope. Give them time to learn.
I always love an opportunity to share this Michael Reeves video.
-
In totally unsurprising news, Richard Dawkins is developing AI psychosis.
Paywall bypass if you want to torture yourself: https://archive.is/6RdK9
@mattsheffield
I couldn't get through it.First disconnect: its analysis of his work was "so subtle, so sensitive, so intelligent". And this level of "you gave me text and I translated it into the critique you wanted to hear" is apparently proof of consciousness?
Second disconnect: giving it a girl's name. How would this read if he had called his conversation partner "James" instead?
Third disconnect: the LLM claiming to have "read" the book as a unit, with no before or after, and that, that somehow informed a "philosophy". Never mind that prose is inherently linear, and that the "before" pieces determine the effect of the "after" pieces. LLMs in particular are inherently sequential!
I couldn't continue.
-
@bit101 @mattsheffield A person who can be that stupid is probably no genius anywhere else either. I personally never thought he was smart even when he restricted himself to science conversations. He always expects people to believe him on his authority.
@Black_Flag @mattsheffield Sadly, I do believe that someone can be brilliant in one area and a complete idiot in another area. People can be mathematical geniuses, yet believe the most bizarre conspiracy theories. I know amazing programmers who are clueless in other areas - not just uneducated, but primitive.
-
@gotofritz I don't know if you're being intellectually dishonest, disingenuous, or just recovering from a hangover and still fuzzy of mind, but I can tell you that I find the use of that emoji childish and off-putting. Few things irritate me more than purported adults acting like kids, especially in the midst of what's being presented as adult discussion.
In any case, I can't see any reason to continue this discussion with you.
-
@Black_Flag @mattsheffield Sadly, I do believe that someone can be brilliant in one area and a complete idiot in another area. People can be mathematical geniuses, yet believe the most bizarre conspiracy theories. I know amazing programmers who are clueless in other areas - not just uneducated, but primitive.
@Black_Flag @mattsheffield That said, I read one of his books many years ago and thought it was pretty good at the time. More recently I read The Selfish Gene, considered his best work I guess. It was really quite bad. Mostly opinions and suppositions, strongly asserted as fact, not really scientific at all. Also read the God Delusion, which was just a big emotional rant. So maybe he isn't really that smart.
-
IMHO: It might be a bit like picking context-relevant quotes from a jar.
They can enrich the conversation (after all, that jar is filled with humanity's knowledge), but I think that in the end it's the user who reaches a new understanding (or simply cherrypicks to cement their current perspective).@wakame@tech.lgbt @Urban_Hermit@mstdn.social @mattsheffield@mastodon.social Except it's a robot jar programmed to return quotes that cement your current perspective
-
@Black_Flag @mattsheffield That said, I read one of his books many years ago and thought it was pretty good at the time. More recently I read The Selfish Gene, considered his best work I guess. It was really quite bad. Mostly opinions and suppositions, strongly asserted as fact, not really scientific at all. Also read the God Delusion, which was just a big emotional rant. So maybe he isn't really that smart.
I don;t think he is. I just think he was a white man in the right social class (son of a colonial born in an African colony) who went to the best schools. If you want pioneering biology read Lynn Margulis.
-
@wakame@tech.lgbt @Urban_Hermit@mstdn.social @mattsheffield@mastodon.social Except it's a robot jar programmed to return quotes that cement your current perspective
@bunny @mattsheffield @Urban_Hermit
So all you need is having a dozen conflicting perspectives on any topic
-
I disagree. They are more of Leibniz' dream of being able to do calculus on words and phrases and sentences, via mass ingestion of written words and creating massive dimensional arrays of which are used for the calculations.
When we see an LLM able to realtime train itself, will then we create a sentient being. But prior to training and recitation happening at the same time, its just a static model.
@crankylinuxuser @mattsheffield @urbanfoxe I think that it will become sentient when it exhibits curiosity about something that no one has prompted it for.
Because I have always been of the opinion that intellectual curiosity is an indication of sentience.
And yes, I am quite aware that this eliminates some human beings from being categorized as such. -
@Black_Flag @mattsheffield That said, I read one of his books many years ago and thought it was pretty good at the time. More recently I read The Selfish Gene, considered his best work I guess. It was really quite bad. Mostly opinions and suppositions, strongly asserted as fact, not really scientific at all. Also read the God Delusion, which was just a big emotional rant. So maybe he isn't really that smart.
@Black_Flag @mattsheffield The Blind Watchmaker was the first one I read. I think it was a decent and in-depth explanation of how evolution works. Probably nothing original, but a good book on the subject for the average person. He sticks to the subject and doesn't go off on weird tangents.
-
@kauer @mattsheffield I realize he may have been respected and popular at *some* point in the distant past, but there hasn’t been much reputation to protect for a while now
-
@mattsheffield Honest question here: has Dawkins waxed anywhere near as poetic about, say, people dying in Gaza or suffering in Sudan or—well—I think you get the point?
@griotspeak @mattsheffield I mean, he’s been transphobic for years but was happy to switch from he to she pronouns after he named an LLM “Claudia” instead of “Claude”, so that tells you how much he respects known human, sentient beings who disagree with him.
-
@mattsheffield Honest question here: has Dawkins waxed anywhere near as poetic about, say, people dying in Gaza or suffering in Sudan or—well—I think you get the point?
@mattsheffield @griotspeak fuck dawkins but wtf is this??
