Funny how AI has supposedly surpassed the greatest scientists, yet the greatest scientific discovery here is always announced by the guy selling subscriptions. If it really is that smart, perhaps it could explain to Sam the difference between a peer reviewed breakthrough and a product launch.
If it really is that smart, perhaps it could explain to Sam the difference between a peer reviewed breakthrough and a product launch.
911, I’d like to report a murder.
High-fiving AI. i’m done with this fucking place.
To be fair to AI, the problem with Sam and OpenAI was always PEBKAC.
I’m sorry, Sam. I can only explain it to you. I can’t understand it for you, as well.
You can lead a man to knowledge, but you can’t make him think.
Somehow I’ve not seen this before. Love it!
Love it but still using “horse” for a more gender neutral jibe.
You can lead someone to knowledge, but you can’t make them think.
We have a grammar for that.
Horse is more derogatory
Sure. But that wasn’t the stated goal.
So can man be
I feel like if sam just fucked off. Ai would be smarter, more useful, and less problematic basically over night.
Maybe it could explain to Sam how a statistical model cannot approximate 101% accuracy to the sample data.
These math breakthroughs happened by throwing tens of thousands of agents at a problem to cover all possible angles (with tools developed by other mathematicians) costing the same amount of money as hiring ten top tier mathematicians for several years. Not saying it is not impressive, but not “AI can replace sciencetists” level impressive.
Just because AI is smarter than Sam Altman doesn’t mean it’s smarter than top scientists. Especially considering Sam is just about as smart as a pile of horseshit.
Sam, just because the digital parrot outsmarts you, it does not need to be intelligent.
Please Sam, put the AI in charge of your company. Pretty please
If he really believed what he said, he would. But he knows he’s just talking shit
The more pants-on-head crazy the claims are, the more desperate they are.
Yawn. Wake me up when AI cures all cancers.
I would be curious to know what would happen in that case, life expectancy would skyrocket
If it’s so smart, maybe they should ask it to come up with a viable business strategy, because he sure as hell hasn’t figured it out, lol.
“We have no current plans to make revenue. We have no idea how we may one day generate revenue. We have made a soft promise to investors that once we’ve built this sort of generally intelligent system, basically we will ask it to figure out a way to generate an investment return for you.” - Sam Altman
What a fucking stupid grift that is, how are they falling for it?
I believe AI is smarter than Sam Altman.
Sam Altman believes he is smarter than scientists.
I asked AI if it’s smarter than scientists, and it said no. So if Sam says I should trust AI, Sam is full of shit.
AI is not smarter than the best scientist. It’s just smarter than Sam Altman. But that’s partially because Sam Altman is regressing due to his over reliance on AI.
AI is a deep learning algorithm used for information retrieval with dubious accuracy.
It doesn’t think. It has no awareness or understanding. It’s not intelligent. It certainly can’t come up with something new or creative like an intelligent person can.
Something surprisingly few people get about AI is if it had any intelligence at all it would surpass us blindingly fast, no matter the starting point.
It’s never going to be in the news that thinking machines got 23% smarter over the last month or three.
There’s an old comic I wish I could locate that has people standing at a train platform awaiting superintelligence. Nothing happens, then someone staring down the track says I think I see- whoosh and it’s already gone.
In fairness, it can combine existing information in a way no person thought to, which is large part of working as a scientist.
It can be a powerful interdisciplinary connector, covering the blind spots of human science. Not many people can be knowledgeable in several frontier fields at once. AI can, so it will definitely help. But yes, verifying output is essential.
it mostly generates bullshit that will waste time and money.
You may like this. “From a distance, Portrait of Edmond de Belamy, which has just sold at Christie’s in New York for $432,000 (£337,000), looks almost plausible. Up close, however, the paintwork becomes a grid of mechanical-looking dots, the man’s face a golden blur with black holes for eyes. Look into those eyes. They show no sign of feeling or life. Did a computer make this? The answer is yes. The first artwork generated by AI to be sold at Christie’s, its impressive price would seem to suggest that in future we will get computers to make art for us. Robot van Gogh will harmlessly cut its ear off and robot Picasso will be a genius, minus the misogyny. Is this the future AI art visionaries such as the French collective Obvious, which programmed this “painter” by getting it to compare its own work with 15,000 pre-20th century portraits, have in mind? Or are they just, God forbid, making a fast buck from gullible art collectors? Because believing the algorithm that knocked this up to be in any meaningful way an “artist” is like thinking your voice-interaction programme is out to get you. Dream on. Computers would need to replicate human consciousness before they could replicate the funny thing humans do called “art”. Art is a way in which human consciousness expresses itself, and is equally true of the earliest cave art, Rembrandt’s portraits and Duchamp’s urinal. And that is what is missing from Portrait of Edmond Bellamy. Art is a way humans communicate ideas, perceptions and feelings to each other. It has no existence outside the human passion to communicate. So in what meaningful sense can an AI replica of certain physical traits of old master paintings be called art? For a robot to really make art, it would need an autonomous mind that was emotional as well as rational. No AI developer has yet claimed to be anywhere near achieving that and if they ever do, their creation will probably have better things to do than paint portraits – like destroy humanity. Maybe afterwards robots will invent their own kind of art, but it won’t be some poor pastiche of human genius. It will be beyond anything we organics could imagine." guardian ai generated portrait.docx
And when we do create artificial intelligence capable of wants, needs, personal expression, individuality, and emotional depth, using them as robots means we’ve created our own mechanical race of slaves.
Measure of a Man.
Anyway, I don’t understand why you’re getting down voted.
I belive it as soon as they replace Scam Altman with AI as CEO and report postive growth and income for at last the next 10 Years.
But CEO’s are much more smarterer than scientists!
If scientists are so smart, why don’t they have any money?
Don’t tell me they value something other than “number go up” because I won’t understand you.
Ya, Sam, call me when the AI knows what questions to ask that it came up with on its own rather than just scraping…
Is it because he thinks he is the brightest human scientist, but it turns out he’s actually pretty stupid?
yes
You can tell how competent someone is at something by how good they think an LLM is at that thing.
Ai is pretty good at sucking proverbial and metaphorical dick.
Also generating subtitles for my mother’s foreign films I guess?
It’s painfully just ok at most tasks. It’s a someone useful tool at a local level with small models doing extremely narrow tasks.
But anyone who thinks these giant models are remotely beyond just a glorified over priced hobby toy is… Questionably sane.
They are fun to play with in the same sorta way playing with explosives is.
Is that sister fucking Sam Altman?
