this post was submitted on 21 Sep 2024
52 points (78.9% liked)

Asklemmy

43945 readers
638 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy ๐Ÿ”

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

  1. Open-ended question
  2. Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
  3. Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
  4. Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
  5. An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Wondering if Modern LLMs like GPT4, Claude Sonnet and llama 3 are closer to human intelligence or next word predictor. Also not sure if this graph is right way to visualize it.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[โ€“] Nomecks@lemmy.ca 10 points 2 months ago (3 children)

I think the real differentiation is understanding. AI still has no understanding of the concepts it knows. If I show a human a few dogs they will likely be able to pick out any other dog with 100% accuracy after understanding what a dog is. With AI it's still just stasticial models that can easily be fooled.

[โ€“] DavidDoesLemmy@aussie.zone 7 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I disagree here. Dogs breeds are so diverse, there's no way you could show some pictures of a few dogs and they'd be able to pick other dogs, but also rule out other dog like creatures. Especially not with 100 percent accuracy.

[โ€“] match@pawb.social 3 points 2 months ago (1 children)

for example, wolves, hyenas, and african wild dogs certainly won't ever reach 100% consensus on dog-or-not within human groups

[โ€“] SturgiesYrFase@lemmy.ml 3 points 2 months ago (1 children)
[โ€“] k_rol@lemmy.ca 2 points 2 months ago (1 children)

You better be sorry, I was not ready to learn about it.

Thanks though...

[โ€“] SturgiesYrFase@lemmy.ml 2 points 2 months ago

I'd have to hand in my Canadian Passport if I weren't, buddy.
Just goes to show, though, that even we can be fooled by things that look really similar.

[โ€“] amorpheus@lemmy.world 1 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

It's certainly progressing. I was shopping for bunk beds recently and one listing was missing a measurement in the diagram. So I put a red line in and asked ChatGPT for the dimension, just giving it the photo and asking how long the red line is. Not only did it take the existing measurements from the photo and applied the necessary trigonometry to calculate what I wanted, it also correctly identified it as a bunk bed, and that there is a slide attached to it - I was looking for how far the slide will stick out into the room.

[โ€“] stupidcasey@lemmy.world -1 points 2 months ago (2 children)

This is entirely presumptive, we simply do not and cannot know how much they understand, this all boils down to if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck is it a duck?

[โ€“] chobeat@lemmy.ml 2 points 2 months ago

we do, and anybody telling you "it's complicated" has an agenda.

That would be true if the world is hollow.

But we know it is not.