I just read your article; it is excellent. Thanks for taking the time to write all that out. I agree that the fundamental reason for doubting the big claims of AI is that there's just no good reason to believe intelligence works this way. All the benchmarks in the world are still no substitute for a plausible theory, and right now all we're offered is the magic of emergence.
I just read your article; it is excellent. Thanks for taking the time to write all that out. I agree that the fundamental reason for doubting the big claims of AI is that there's just no good reason to believe intelligence works this way. All the benchmarks in the world are still no substitute for a plausible theory, and right now all we're offered is the magic of emergence.
“When one develops artificial intelligence, either one should have a clear physical model in mind or one should have a rigorous mathematical basis. AI-chemy has neither” — Enrico Fermi
I just read your article; it is excellent. Thanks for taking the time to write all that out. I agree that the fundamental reason for doubting the big claims of AI is that there's just no good reason to believe intelligence works this way. All the benchmarks in the world are still no substitute for a plausible theory, and right now all we're offered is the magic of emergence.
“When one develops artificial intelligence, either one should have a clear physical model in mind or one should have a rigorous mathematical basis. AI-chemy has neither” — Enrico Fermi
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=hV41QEKiMlM
And with 175 billion parameters, Johnny Von Neumann could make the elephant hallucinate like an LLM