• Omega_Jimes@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    6 hours ago

    I’m not convinced that it’s anywhere near an AGI, I’m convinced after combing through papers and code, that it’s an amazing parlor trick.

    I’d love to be proven wrong, but everything I’ve seen and everything I’ve used in my studies ( using DNN to simulate neurodivergence and spinal disgenesis, which is kinda AI adjacent) leads me to believe that the current part won’t lead to anything but convincing parlor tricks.

    The argument could be made that if a trick is convincing enough, does it matter if it’s intelligent or not.

      • Omega_Jimes@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        30 seconds ago

        I’m not entirely sure.
        A non-probabilistic algorithm, probably. Something that didn’t rely on the liklihood of association, and instead was capable of context and rationality.
        Something that wouldn’t have a system capable of saying “Put glue on your pizza” because it would know that’s a silly thing to say to a human. A system that, when asked "Whats a good caustic detergent " wouldn’t be able to respond "Any good caustic detergent is a good caustic detergent " because duh. Something that doesn’t require thousands of hours of training to update and instead is capable of ingesting and rationalize new information on the fly.