this post was submitted on 07 Aug 2024
129 points (93.3% liked)

Technology

59204 readers
2830 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
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] cygnus@lemmy.ca 148 points 3 months ago (78 children)

LLMs will not give us AGI. This is obvious to anyone who knows how they work.

[–] Rhaedas@fedia.io 17 points 3 months ago

LLMs alone won't. Experts in the field seem to have different opinions on if they will help get us there. What is concerning to me is that the issues and dangers of AGI also exist with advanced LLM models, and that research is being shelved because it gets in the way of profit. Maybe we'll never be able to get to AGI, but we sure better hope if we do we get it right the first time. How's that been going with the more primitive LLMs?

Do we even know what the "right" AGI would be? We're treading in dangerous waters.

Corollary: anyone who thinks LLMs will give us AGI - regardless of academic or professional experience and expertise - either doesn’t understand how LLMs work, or is intentionally lying.

[–] capital@lemmy.world 6 points 3 months ago (1 children)

I haven't assumed that those who believe AGI will, at some point, come to be necessarily think that LLMs is exactly the tech which will get us there. Just that AGI is likely to happen because they don't think there's anything super special about the meat in our heads that makes intelligence possible and it should be able to be reproduced in other mediums.

[–] kureta@lemmy.ml 4 points 3 months ago

I have been trying to convince my friend for weeks now. Not 24/7 of course. I try to explain how it works and we need at least another conceptually new method, this will never cut it. He says, "nobody could have predicted any of this, so you cannot be sure. You see, ChatGPT will take all the jobs in a couple of years."

load more comments (75 replies)
[–] mozz@mbin.grits.dev 13 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

I just tried Claude after having some issues with using GPT on Firefox that OpenAI’s support was unable to resolve other than some “it’s all your fault, clear your cookies” bullet points.

I only tried Claude a little bit so far, but it seems way better.

[–] WhyJiffie@sh.itjust.works 5 points 3 months ago

I've been using DuckDuckGo's AI Chat relatively a lot lately and it has always worked for me. Well, with one exception, I was able to break it accidentally by including a specific special character in the input, which then it tried to respond with, and then it failed to load the response. Luckily I was about to tell it to refer to that character in a different way. I don't remember which character was it, but not a punctuation mark, not something rare I copied from somewhere. Maybe one that's often displayed with an empty rectangle in UTF-8.

I like that anything I do there is not tied to an account, but not even to an IP address or anything like that, assuming that I trust DDG with it, because it acts as a proxy. Sure, it doesn't have the latest version of ChatGPT and Claude, but I don't need cutting edge tech either, they work fine enough, and this added privacy is more important to me.

[–] Grandwolf319@sh.itjust.works 8 points 3 months ago

Well most have already cashed in on the hype, now it’s time to jump onto the next hype train.

[–] fubarx@lemmy.ml 1 points 3 months ago
load more comments
view more: next ›