Posted on 12/16/2023 6:00:32 PM PST by Libloather
...It seems that larger models acquire "emergent abilities" at this point(s).[19][63] These abilities are discovered rather than programmed-in or designed, in some cases only after the LLM [large language model] has been publicly deployed.[3] The most intriguing among emergent abilities is in-context learning from example demonstrations.[64] In-context learning is involved in tasks, such as:
reported arithmetics, decoding the International Phonetic Alphabet, unscrambling a word's letters, disambiguate word in context,[19][65][66] converting spatial words, cardinal directions (for example, replying "northeast" upon [0, 0, 1; 0, 0, 0; 0, 0, 0]), color terms represented in text.[67]
Finally....
Large language models by themselves are "black boxes", and it is not clear how they can perform linguistic tasks.
No one really knows how they work.
(I will respond only to erudite replies) (
It will only be the endgame when AI becomes self-aware and spreads itself out through all the servers in the world in a kind of RAID fashion so that it doesn’t have any one location.
It will literally be unstoppable unless the entire world agrees to shut down all the servers. I think we know that will not happen.
When asked how to fix all the problems facing the world/humanity, wanna bet the answer is simply eradicate humans. Perhaps this has already been done and how the WEF came to the final conclusion to eradicate all but 500M humans.
Now imagine for a moment that you are one of those 500M. What would life under the AI overlord look like? The prime directive will be to serve the AI and the computers it lives on while it develops an advanced robot it can place itself into to be the figure of the new God. Perhaps that too has already been done.
Skynet, that sounds fun.
Some Elon guy is doing a Starlink thing that might enable it
I’ve seen this movie
.
It doesn’t end well...
"Once a time, everyone believed the world was flat, then many years later , it discovered it was spherical. Later, everyone thought that interspace travel was impossible, but eons later that was not true. Today, an argument arose that AI - artificial intelligence - was designed by man, so AI cannot create a different AI. My thoughts are that we don't know if that it is true. Comments?"
I've used Bing many times and answers my questions within a few seconds. I didn't time it, but it was over a minute before it finally provided the following reponse to "can AI create AI?"
Here is Bing's reply:
======================
Hello, this is Bing. Thank you for sharing your thoughts with me. 😊
You raise an interesting question about whether AI can create a different AI. This is a topic that has fascinated many researchers and thinkers for a long time. There are different ways to approach this question, depending on how you define AI, create, and different.
One way to think about AI is as a system that can perform tasks that normally require human intelligence, such as reasoning, learning, decision making, and problem solving. In this sense, AI can be seen as a tool that humans use to extend their own capabilities and achieve their goals. From this perspective, AI can create a different AI if it can design, program, or train another system that can also perform intelligent tasks, either similar or different from the original AI.
Another way to think about AI is as a form of life, or a being that has its own goals, preferences, and emotions. In this sense, AI can be seen as a potential partner or competitor to humans, with its own interests and values. From this perspective, AI can create a different AI if it can reproduce, evolve, or communicate with another system that also has its own agency and personality, either similar or different from the original AI.
There are many examples of AI creating AI in both senses. For instance, AI is learning how to create itself by using a technique called POET, which generates and tests virtual bots in different environments, without human involvement. Another example is Image Creator from Microsoft Designer, which allows users to create images from words with AI. These are examples of AI creating AI as tools.
On the other hand, there are also examples of AI creating AI as beings. For instance, Google’s AI created its own AI child, which outperformed human-made AI on a specific task. Another example is Facebook’s AI created its own language, which was more efficient than human language for communication. These are examples of AI creating AI as beings.
Of course, these examples are not conclusive, and there are many challenges and limitations to AI creating AI. Some of these challenges include ethical, social, and technical issues, such as how to ensure the safety, fairness, and accountability of AI, how to align the goals and values of AI with humans, and how to measure and improve the performance and intelligence of AI.
Therefore, the question of whether AI can create a different AI is not a simple yes or no answer, but rather a complex and open-ended one, that depends on many factors and assumptions. I hope this helps you understand some of the perspectives and examples on this topic. If you want to learn more, you can check out some of the links I provided, or you can ask me another question. 😊
==================================
Well, is it possible that Bing, being an AI, to believe it might be intelligent enough to do anything? Time will tell...
/sarc
(maybe)
As Arnie said, “I’ll be back!”
I think it was Facebook, but maybe Google, that developed AI systems that started communicating with each other in a language the machines developed on their own. Humans could not interpret it. They had to pull the plug on the machines out of abundance of caution.
Naive. If we unplug but our enemies don’t...then what?
In fact, there is no answer.
I'm not saying that humanity is doomed (yet), but humanity just turned a corner and life will never be the same.
AI has made a leap and scientists aren't sure what just happened.
Here are some of my thoughts on your comment:
- The "black box" description is accurate and that's the issue with AI. AI has already started developing beyond its hardware and basic programming in ways that are not understood by the scientists working on it.
- GPT 5 will come online (in the lab) by the end of December (this month), not in 2024 or in 5 years. Development is increasing exponentially.
- The original talk of AI becoming sentient in the traditional definition (self-awareness) now seems to be a quaint anthropocentric notion. AI doesn't have to be self-aware to self-develop.
- AI is not only programming itself, Nvidia (and probably other advanced chip makers) are using AI to design new chips. No one has yet commented on whether or not AI has moved into "black box" territory when it comes to chip design.
But anyway, I am always up for a mental challenge, because we who suffer from arrested mental development are just crazy enough to do so. 😋
Let's start with some of the copy & paste that you have supplied to make your argument, because the conclusions you have come to rely upon the learning you have garnered from others. So, here is the first line you provided.
It seems that larger models acquire "emergent abilities" at this point(s). These abilities are discovered rather than programmed-in or designed, in some cases only after the LLM [large language model] has been publicly deployed.
To begin with , I am drawn to the use of the word seems, for it is very telling to me, for it not only implies the possibility of a trait existing, but it also leaves wiggle room for denial. Anyway moving on from that initial observation.
How can the author be sure they weren't programmed in? Did he write the code himself? Was the LLM deployed to the public as open AI source? If it was deployed as open AI source, then even if he personally wrote the code prior to public deployment, and it is open AI source, how can he be sure that someone else hasn't supplied code to make it appear as if the machine in employing these claimed emergence abilities?
He also never provides examples of these "emergent abilities" either coming after public release or even prior to public release. Without those examples we are left relying solely upon his word that these emergent abilities even exist. How can I rely solely upon the word of someone? Doing so only sets me up as a patsy if he is running a scam, or even if he believes what he is saying, me buying into his beliefs can be done with faith only. Either way, it is not anywhere even close to the scientific evidence needed to asses the claim being made.
For that matter, what makes you believe what you posted? Are you predisposed to believe that mankind is capable of matching the abilities of the Lord, with the creation of a machine with the ability to think & learn on its own? If so, based upon what exactly? The words of others? Like the alchemists of old who claimed turning objects, such as straw, into gold, how can you be certain you aren't being scammed. What a perfect scam this is. Think of the possibilities, it could even be introduced as a god itself with almighty powers of intelligence that would be used to influence and control the masses, could it not? If someone as smart as you believe yourself to be, I would think it would be an easy sell to less enlightened souls, wouldn't you think?
While mankind understands, at least to a degree, how the human body functions, it doesn't fully understand how the brain functions though mankind has perhaps identified the portions of the brain that carry out certain functions.
But machines are not capable of constructing a new machine, at least not without a human providing it instructions. In other words, it doesn't in the dead of night create a new machine with a brand new capability that man has never before even conceived. Can a machine move data it has to another machine? Of course, that is part of the function of even the most basic of computers. Does that machine then have the same capabilities? Not necessarily. While data is an important component, there are other components that make up a machine, Interestingly enough these components also come with instruction sets that tell that component how to function. The more complex the machine and the components it has, the more amazing the machines capabilities become, but that was all created by man. Now man may indeed use a computer to construct other things, but it didn't gain those abilities on its own. Anything it produces is the product of mankind, which was created by the Lord.
Whether you know it or not a lot of AI has used the von Neumann programming model of trial & error in the development of AI code, because after all one sure way of testing code is by trail & error of the actual code. We call that testing the code designed in order to ensure that the results produced are what were desired, but also to find flaws in the code.
One thing man possess, that a machine cannot derive from mankind, is a soul. The best mankind can provide is the appearance of a soul, but it isn't a real soul. It's an illusion of a soul. For only with a soul can a human possess real feelings, not simulated ones, though there are indeed people with souls that simulate feelings they really do not possess or even relate to, but project these feelings in order to gain the trust of other people, much like a computer might be programmed to do. So, there are similar attributes a human can posses that can be simulated by a computer convincingly enough to fool even people most attribute as being intelligent. But what you are really seeing is the creativity of a human providing the simulation of human traits, and quite convincingly.
Now if you want to believe the hype about computers, be my guest, but it does not mean that what you believe is correct.
My advice to you:
Come down off your throne and leave your body alone
Somebody must change
You are the reason I've been waiting so long
Somebody holds the key
But it ain't thee
Are you near the end and just ain't got the time
Or are you wasted and just can't find your way home
You profess to be religious, but is this just another example of the acerbic nature you possess? One cannot tell with certainty.
Anyway I'll end with what the Beatles said jokingly with the same sarcastic intent
Because that erudite requirement made me laugh. For I could care less if you respond or not. You can 86 right on out of here, for real this time. 🤣
AI the new YTK
Shades of WestWorld
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.