>> 4. I never had any doubt that this would work. GPT is trained on the internet, which is replete with nerds talking about their nerd shit. Nerds love nothing more than to explain things. As evidence, see: this whole-ass web site
Saying that humans are not stochastic parrots because it makes you feel bad isn’t really proof that we aren’t parrots. I’m not saying we are parrots, just that many of the arguments in the post are unfounded vitriol.
It's not necessary to provide proof that humans are not machines which do nothing but guess the next likely word. But also feeling anything at all is proof of that.
If two entities--one an "AI", one a real, thinking person--happen to say the same thing, one is a stochastic parrot, and one isn't. The "real, thinking" part is what makes all the difference. We use language to communicate thoughts. These hucksters are taking advantage of the conflation of languages and the thoughts they are used to convey to pretend they have invented thinking machines.
Calling humans "stochastic parrots" implies that there's no actual thought or meaning behind what they say, that their output is a probabilistic process with no "driver". The author points out that his own output in response to this idea is driven by his feeling of disgust towards it. A disproof by counterexample.
2) Kind of hard to argue that for electricity and phones. Internet, maybe because it was a bunch of academics. TV was boosted by big business.
3) It fails to solve any task, in particular LLMs. You're tricked into doing the work instead. Other kinds of machine learning are useful and do solve tasks. TV also didn't exist to solve a task, at least it was honest about it. Phones solve the task they were meant to, as did the internet until it got enshittened.
(Still does, but worse.)
4) whut.
5) It actually steals information. All the other tech didn't.
It's Not "AI"
Its Boosters Are Misanthropic
The Hype Sucks And It’s Encroachingly Ubiquitous
Its Obsequity Is Annoying And Its Prose Is Vapid
Its Boosters Don’t Give A Shit About Consent
So What Am I Even Fucking Doing Here
The post can be summarised "I am an old grumpy man. I don't like change. I don't like hype. I don't like people with different values than I have. Let's opposite all change."
Sure, the stuff is bad. You can use the same arguments for any tech: Internet, mobile phones, social media. But for most of the people, the stuff is good. ChatGPT has hundreds of millions of active users. Those users are happy, because it creates enormous value for them.
AI affects non-users in a substantially different way to phones or social media. When I phone someone, it doesn't matter if it's a landline or mobile phone (though, in the UK we can tell by the leading digit). But when I read someone's pull request or press release, it does matter whether it's vibe coded, or made by the person. Looking at the person using the tool does not show the whole picture. You're welcome to have different values, but don't hide from me what I apply my values to.
it's tagged as "rant" and that what it is. And I think he's more concerned about the hype or unethical behaviors, but not actual AI. But I am just guessing...
ggm|6 months ago
It stands out to me that people like Hinton aren't boosting and aren't seeking stonks. I suspect he's aghast.
YeGoblynQueenne|6 months ago
::applause::
bcrosby95|6 months ago
deepvibrations|6 months ago
HellDunkel|6 months ago
rokob|6 months ago
ziftface|6 months ago
AstralStorm|6 months ago
drweevil|6 months ago
roarcher|6 months ago
Calling humans "stochastic parrots" implies that there's no actual thought or meaning behind what they say, that their output is a probabilistic process with no "driver". The author points out that his own output in response to this idea is driven by his feeling of disgust towards it. A disproof by counterexample.
Lockal|6 months ago
1) Because the thing you are talking about is just rebranded thing that existed 20 years before
2) Because boosters are egocentric drug addicts, pederasts, druglords with crypto stashes, raped their sister, or everything altogether
3) Because it failed to solve MY task
4) Because it can't be more important than a sunshine
5) Because it attacks my intellectual property
AstralStorm|6 months ago
2) Kind of hard to argue that for electricity and phones. Internet, maybe because it was a bunch of academics. TV was boosted by big business.
3) It fails to solve any task, in particular LLMs. You're tricked into doing the work instead. Other kinds of machine learning are useful and do solve tasks. TV also didn't exist to solve a task, at least it was honest about it. Phones solve the task they were meant to, as did the internet until it got enshittened. (Still does, but worse.)
4) whut.
5) It actually steals information. All the other tech didn't.
meristohm|6 months ago
It's Not "AI" Its Boosters Are Misanthropic The Hype Sucks And It’s Encroachingly Ubiquitous Its Obsequity Is Annoying And Its Prose Is Vapid Its Boosters Don’t Give A Shit About Consent So What Am I Even Fucking Doing Here
miohtama|6 months ago
Sure, the stuff is bad. You can use the same arguments for any tech: Internet, mobile phones, social media. But for most of the people, the stuff is good. ChatGPT has hundreds of millions of active users. Those users are happy, because it creates enormous value for them.
tobylane|6 months ago
AI affects non-users in a substantially different way to phones or social media. When I phone someone, it doesn't matter if it's a landline or mobile phone (though, in the UK we can tell by the leading digit). But when I read someone's pull request or press release, it does matter whether it's vibe coded, or made by the person. Looking at the person using the tool does not show the whole picture. You're welcome to have different values, but don't hide from me what I apply my values to.
HellDunkel|6 months ago
y42|6 months ago