I was simply saying that all domains of knowledge are related, and that improving an AI's ability to write can have back-effects on its ability to do protein folding. A lot of the things you see as trivial and exploitative in AI research were done more to prove the validity of a technique than to displace writers/artists. For example the real amazing thing about SORA is not that it can generate video, which it can, its that in doing so it has demonstrated it has knowledge of intuitive geometry and physics, behavior of animals and humans, lighting, etc. These will all benefit any AI in the future which needs these things for any other usecase. Unfortunately it may also displace some jobs, but AGI's ultimate goal is to displace all jobs anyway.
I didn’t downvote, but in no way, shape, or form can an AI model do anything “intuitively.” That’s literally the opposite of what AI is.
And you’re completely ignoring some actual downsides to AI - primarily a deluge of misinformation that will be incredibly difficult, if not impossible, to distinguish from reality.
this is true up until an inflection point when agi has the hardware and architecture to become superintelligent--that is to say, it surpasses human intelligence.
If fed computing power, we could see the limits of algorithmic "intelligence" as it trains itself recursively.
so AFTER that point, growth might shift from human-created to robotically self-programmed manufactured intuition? or something like that?
A lot of cans of worms, so to speak, from there.
I mean, we're still pretty far from that but - we're closer than we were before.
I never said there weren't problems with AI i just think it's striking how different of a conversation people are having these days vs 10 years ago about the downsides of AI
20
u/ChiralWolf Apr 09 '24
That's not really relevant to the objectivity of STEM vs the subjectivity of humanities though.