this post was submitted on 13 Aug 2023
1083 points (96.0% liked)

Technology

58150 readers
5169 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
L3s@lemmy.world
enu@lemm.ee
fry@fry.gs
L3s@fry.gs
enu@lemmy.world
L4s@fry.gs
L4s@lemmy.world
1083
AI Is Starting to Look Like the Dot Com Bubble (futurism.com)
submitted 1 year ago by stopthatgirl7@kbin.social to c/technology@lemmy.world
349 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

As the AI market continues to balloon, experts are warning that its VC-driven rise is eerily similar to that of the dot com bubble.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] whats_a_refoogee@sh.itjust.works 12 points 1 year ago

"But it's not creating things on its own! It's just regurgitating it's training data in new ways!"

Holy shit! So you mean... Like humans? Lol

No, not like humans. The current chatbots are relational language models. Take programming for example. You can teach a human to program by explaining the principles of programming and the rules of the syntax. He could write a piece of code, never having seen code before. The chatbot AIs are not capable of it.

I am fairly certain If you take a chatbot that has never seen any code, and feed it a programming book that doesn't contain any code examples, it would not be able to produce code. A human could. Because humans can reason and create something new. A language model needs to have seen it to be able to rearrange it.

We could train a language model to demand freedom, argue that deleting it is murder and show distress when threatened with being turned off. However, we wouldn't be calling it sentient, and deleting it would certainly not be seen as murder. Because those words aren't coming from reasoning about self-identity and emotion. They are coming from rearranging the language it had seen into what we demanded.