Funny story... I switched to Home assistant from custom software I wrote when I realized I was reverse engineering the MyQ API for the 5th time and really didn't feel like doing it a 6th. Just ordered some ratdgos.
I think it might require plus but the iOS And Android apps do support voice only conversation. You have to go into beta features and enable it.
It's interesting. I've been seeing a lot of the incorrect ideas from this video being spread around lately, and I think this is the source. I'm surprised there aren't more people correcting the errors, but here's one from someone in the banking industry who completely refutes her claims of not being able to use AI to approve mortgages. If I had more time, I'd write up something going over all the issues in that video. Like she even misunderstands how art works unrelated to AI. She is basically saying that anything she doesn't like isn't art. That's not how that works at all. Anyway, it's really hard to watch that video as someone who works in the field and has a much better understanding of what she's talking about than she does. I'm sure she knows a lot more about astrophysics than I do. She also made a video saying all humanoid robots are junk. She's very opinionated about things she doesn't have experience with, which again, is her right. Just I think a lot of people put weight into what she says and her opinions because she's got a PhD after her name. Doesn't matter that it's not in AI or robotics.
Man that video irks me. She is conflating AI with AGI. I think a lot of people are watching that video and spouting out what she says as fact. Yet her basic assertion is incorrect because she isn't using the right terminology. If she explained that up front, the video would be way more accurate. She almost goes there but stops short. I would also accept her saying that her definition of AI is anything a human can do that a computer currently can't. I'm not a fan of that definition but it has been widely used for decades. I much prefer delineating AI vs AGI. Anyway this is the first time I watched the video and it explains a lot of the confidently wrong comments on AI I've seen lately. Also please don't take your AI information from an astrophysicist, even if they use AI at work. Get it from an expert in the field.
Anyway, ChatGPT is AI. It is not AGI though per recent papers, it is getting closer.
For anyone who doesn't know the abbreviation, AGI is Artificial General Intelligence or human level intelligence in a machine. ASI is Artificial Super Intelligence which is beyond human level and the really scary stuff in movies.
I mean, your argument is still basically that it’s thinking inside there; everything I’ve said is germane to that point, including what GPT4 itself has said.
My argument?
That doesn’t mean they’re having thoughts in there I mean. Not in the way we do, and not with any agency, but I hadn’t argued either way on thoughts because I don’t know the answer to that.
Are you assuming I’m saying that LLMs are sentient, conscious, have thoughts or similar? I’m not. Jury’s out on the thought thing, but I certainly don’t believe the other two things.
I'm not saying it's thinking or has thoughts. I'm saying I don't know the answer to that, but if it is it definitely isn't anything like human thoughts.
Simply because its interior is a black box doesn’t mean we don’t understand how we built that black box, or how it operates and functions.
Wait a sec. I think we're saying the same thing here. I guess depending on what you mean by how it operates and functions. I've said multiple times we understand the math and the code. We understand how values propagate through it because again, that's all the math and code people wrote. What we don't understand is how it uses that math and code to actually do thinks that seem intelligent (putting aside the point of whether it is or is not intelligent). If that's what you're arguing then great, we're on the same page!
I also can’t inspect the electrons moving through my computer’s CPU. Does that mean we don’t understand how computers work? Is there intelligence in there?
Well, I don't have the equipment to look at electrons either (I don't think that tech exists), but I can take a logic probe and get some information that I could probably understand, or someone who designs CPUs could look at the gates and whatever and tell you what they did and how they relate to whatever higher level operations. You're bringing up something completely different here. Computers are not a black box at all. LLMs are-- you just said that yourself.
No, that is not my main objection. It is your anthropomorphization of data and LLMs
I'm not anthropomorphisizing them. What are you talking about? I keep saying they don't work like human brains. I just said I don't think they're sentient or conscious. I said they don't have agency.
I think you’re getting caught up in trying to define what intelligence is; but I am simply stating what it is not.
How do you know what it's not if we can't define what it is?
It is not a complex statistical model with no self-awareness, no semantic understanding, no ability to learn, no emotional or ethical dimensionality, no qualia…
Jury's still out on whether human brains are complex statistical models. I mean (from here)...
Our brains have learned, through evolution and experience, the statistical properties of our natural environments and exploit this knowledge when performing perceptual tasks.
I don't make any claim to understanding neuroscience, and I don't think that article is saying for sure we know that.
Anyway, in-context learning is a thing for LLMs. Maybe one day we'll figure out how to have them adjust their weights after training, but that's not happening now (well people are experimenting with it).
New research is showing they do have semantic understanding.
They don't by themselves have self-awareness, but a software framework built up around them can generally do that to some extent.
They do understand emotions and ethics. Someone built a fun GPTrolley web site a while ago. I think it died pretty quickly because it was too expensive for them, but it had GPT 3(?) answering Trolley Problem questions. It did (in my memory of it) like to save any "AGI" on one track over humans, which was amusing. They don't have emotions, no. Does something have to have emotions to be intelligent?
And no, I've said all along they aren't conscious, so no qualia. Again, is that required for intelligence?
This is the crux of the problem: it is not a “square” to a computer because a “square” is a human classification. Your thoughts about squares are not just more robust than GPT’s, they are a different kind of thing altogether. For GPT, a square is a token that it has been trained to use in a context-appropriate manner with no idea of what it represents. It lacks semantic understanding of squares. As do all computers.
No. A square to GPTs is not just a token. It's associated with some meaning. I'm not going to re-hash embedding and word vectors and whatever since I feel like I've explained that to death.
If you’re saying that intelligence and understanding is limited to the human mind, then please point to some non-religious literature that backs up your assertion.
I’m disappointed that you’re asking me to prove a negative.
I'm literally not. "Intelligence is limited to the human mind" is not a negative.
The burden of proof is on you to show that GPT4 is actually intelligent. I don’t believe intelligence and understanding are for humans only; animals clearly show it too. But GPT4 does not.
I feel like I've laid out my argument for that mostly through the Microsoft and Max Tegmark papers. Are you saying intelligence is only the domain of biological life?
Here's a question-- are you conflating "intelligence" with "general intelligence" like AGI? I find a lot of people think "AI" means "AGI." It doesn't help that some people do say those things interchangeably. I was just reading a recent argument between Yann LeCun and Yoshua Bengio and they were both totally doing that. Anyway, I don't at all believe GPT4 is AGI or that LLMs could even be AGI.
For an overview of how many different kinds of LLMs function, here’s a good paper: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2307.06435.pdf
Looks like a great paper-- I hadn't seen it yet. I know how LLMs are constructed (generally-- while I could go and write some code for a multi-layer neural network with back propagation without looking anything up, I couldn't do that for an LLM without looking at a diagram of the layers or whatnot).
I'm aware of that date.
The OpenAI GPT-4 video literally states that GPT-4 finished training in August 2022.
Either way, to clarify / reiterate, you're refuting a different point than I've made. I said:
Its understanding of AI is from before it was trained, so it is wildly out of date at this point given how much has happened in the space since.
I'm not talking about whether it knows about its own training (I doubt that it does). I'm talking about it knowing about what's happened in the broader AI landscape since.
Care to provide some proof of that? They did update their system prompt to include a few things like it is now GPT4 (it used to always say GPT3). Other than that, I don't think it knows anything. But in general, I was more talking about developments in AI since it was trained which it certainly does not know.
For the record, GPT4 specifically is non-deterministic. The current theory is because it uses MoE, but that's just a theory. Maybe OpenAI knows why. Also, it's not a random seed, it's temperature. If you set that to 0, the model should always select the most probable next token because the probability becomes 1 for that token and 0 for all others. GPT3 and most others are basically deterministic at that level, but not GPT4.
I'd just like to step in here and mention that asking an LLM is probably not a good proof (and this is directed at both of you). Its understanding of AI is from before it was trained, so it is wildly out of date at this point given how much has happened in the space since.
@SirGolan
@lemmy.sdf.org