On Wed, Jun 26, 2024 at 3:33 PM PGC <[email protected]> wrote:
> it's crucial to remember that beating benchmarks or covering a wide range > of conversational topics does not equate to general intelligence Why not?! Claude can cover a WIDE range of topics but it's still NARROW?? It's interesting that nobody had a problem with any of these benchmarks just a few years ago when most people thought it would be centuries or never before a computer could pass any of them, but now that computers have blown past almost all of those benchmarks one after the other all of a sudden people are now saying those benchmarks were never any good. I think that's just whistling past the graveyard. John K Clark See what's on my new list at Extropolis <https://groups.google.com/g/extropolis> wpg Your excitement about Claude 3.5 Sonnet's performance is understandable. > It's an impressive development, but it's crucial to remember that beating > benchmarks or covering a wide range of conversational topics does not > equate to general intelligence. I wish we lived in a context where I could > encourage you to provide evidence for your claims about AI capabilities and > future predictions but Claude, OpenAI, etc are... not exactly open. > > Then we could discuss empirical data and trends instead of betting: I > don't know what the capability ceiling is, for narrow AI development behind > closed doors now or in the next years, nor have I pretended to. > Wide/general is not narrow/specific and brittle. But I am happy for you if > you feel that you can converse intelligently with it; I know what you mean. > For my taste its a tad obsequious and not very original, i.e. I am > providing all the originality of the conversation that some large > corporation is sucking up without getting paid for it. > > > *I don't want clever conversationI never want to work that hard, mmm - *Billy > Joel > On Monday, June 24, 2024 at 11:02:05 PM UTC+2 John Clark wrote: > >> On Mon, Jun 24, 2024 at 10:00 AM PGC <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >>> *> And for everybody here assuming the Mechanist ontology, which implies >>> the Strong AI thesis, i.e. the assertion that a machine can think,* >>> >> >> I don't know about everybody but I certainly have that view because the >> only alternative is vitalism, the idea that only life, especially human >> life, has a special secret sauce that is not mechanistic, that is to say >> does not follow the same laws of physics as non-living things. And that >> view has been thoroughly discredited since 1859 when Darwin wrote "The >> Origin Of Species". >> >> >> >>> *> I am curious as to why any of you would assume that general >>> intelligence and mind would arise from a narrow AI.* >>> >> >> If a human could converse with you as intelligently as Claude can in such >> a wide number of unrelated topics you would never call his range of >> interest narrow, but because Claude's brain is hard and dry and not soft >> and squishy you do. I'll tell you what let's make a bet, I bet that an AI >> will win the International Mathematical Olympiad in less than 3 years, >> perhaps much less. I also bet that in less than 3 years the main political >> issue in every major country will not be unlawful immigration or crime or >> even an excess in wokeness, it will be what to do about AI which is taking >> over jobs at an accelerating rate. What do you bet? >> >> >> >> bwu >> >> >>> -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/4bb09c16-61df-4b07-a024-eae5eafffb90n%40googlegroups.com > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/4bb09c16-61df-4b07-a024-eae5eafffb90n%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> > . > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv2dhncZFoOm-M0zm5GFezwY-bDqRzhezfew1La1DYPkJg%40mail.gmail.com.
