Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

johnnymoha t1_ja4z0xk wrote

Reply to comment by Cryptizard in So what should we do? by googoobah

Seems arrogant to think you can see the difference this time.

6

Cryptizard t1_ja4zefv wrote

No, it's just uh... what is it called... objective reality? Maybe you should try it some time.

−4

boersc t1_ja50jqu wrote

AI currently really isn't that much different from 30-40 years ago. Not really. Back then, they also did mass training of ai and also got it horribly wrong, for reasons difficult to explain. Ai identifying tanks based on whether the sun is shining or not, was a prime example back then.

It hasn't progressed that much beyond that, when you actually study it. Boston dynamics probably are most advanced nowadays and even those robots aren't really 'smart'. They can't do what they are not trained to do. Same with all the chatboxes nowaday. They can only combine and extrapolate that they have been taught. There is no original thought.

1

atleastimnotabanker t1_ja576s5 wrote

Boston Dynamics is specializing in robotics, there are different companies that are far more advanced when it comes to AI

3

hervalfreire t1_ja79j62 wrote

Machine Learning (“mass training”?) didn’t exist 40 years ago. Cases like the tank one you described used a completely different technique that didn’t utilize RNNs or the like. Other than hardware capabilities, there’s been a big number of breakthroughs in the past 2-3 decades or so, from LSTMs to diffusion models and LLMs. It’s 100% not even close to what we did back in the 90s…

2

Cryptizard t1_ja51wb0 wrote

No, lol, you are completely bullshitting here. It is extremely different, even compared to a few years ago. The advent of a transformer model literally changed everything. That's not to say that it is the only advancement, or even that it is ultimately the thing that will lead to AGI, but to claim that it is "not much different" is either uninformed or trolling.

0

johnnymoha t1_ja6m48v wrote

Sure random redditor. You've cracked the code. You're the smartest among us. Your reaction shows you're less concerned with objectivity than you think.

1