James Cameron on AI: “I warned you guys in 1984 and you didn’t listen”::undefined

  • @orphiebaby
    link
    English
    136
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    It’s getting old telling people this, but… the AI that we have right now? Isn’t even really AI. It’s certainly not anything like in the movies. It’s just pattern-recognition algorithms. It doesn’t know or understand anything and it has no context. It can’t tell the difference between a truth and a lie, and it doesn’t know what a finger is. It just paints amalgamations of things it’s already seen, or throws together things that seem common to it— with no filter nor sense of “that can’t be correct”.

    I’m not saying there’s nothing to be afraid of concerning today’s “AI”, but it’s not comparable to movie/book AI.

    Edit: The replies annoy me. It’s just the same thing all over again— everything I said seems to have went right over most peoples’ heads. If you don’t know what today’s “AI” is, then please stop assuming about what it is. Your imagination is way more interesting than what we actually have right now. This is why we should have never called what we have now “AI” in the first place— same reason we should never have called things “black holes”. You take a misnomer and your imagination goes wild, and none of it is factual.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      341 year ago

      THANK YOU. What we have today is amazing, but there’s still a massive gulf to cross before we arrive at artificial general intelligence.

      What we have today is the equivalent of a four-year-old given a whole bunch of physics equations and then being told “hey, can you come up with something that looks like this?” It has no understanding besides “I see squiggly shape in A and squiggly shape in B, so I’ll copy squiggly shape onto C”.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      91 year ago

      I really think the only thing to be concerned of is human bad actors with AI and not AI. AI alignment will be significantly easier than human alignment as we are for sure not aligned and it is not even our nature to be aligned.

      • PopShark
        link
        English
        21 year ago

        I’ve had this same thought for decades now ever since I first heard of ai takeover scifi stuff as a kid. Bots just preform set functions. People in control of bots can create mayhem.

    • @jeffw
      link
      English
      81 year ago

      Strong AI vs weak AI.

      We’re a far cry from real AI

      • @Homo_Stupidus
        link
        English
        51 year ago

        Isn’t that also referred to as Virtual Intelligence vs Artificial Intelligence? What we have now I’d just very well trained VI. It’s not AI because it only outputs variations of what’s it been trained using algorithms, right? Actual AI would be capable of generating information entirely distinct from any inputs.

    • Raltoid
      link
      English
      81 year ago

      The replies annoy me. It’s just the same thing all over again— everything I said seems to have went right over most peoples’ heads.

      Not at all.

      They just don’t like being told they’re wrong and will attack you instead of learning something.

    • @terminhell
      link
      English
      41 year ago

      GAI - General Artificial Intelligence is what most people jump too. And, for those wondering, that’s the beginning of the end game type. That’s the kind that will understand context. The ability to ‘think’ on its own with little to no input from humans. What we have now is basically autocorrect on super steroids.

    • @Synchrome
      link
      English
      0
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      deleted by creator

      • @orphiebaby
        link
        English
        111 year ago

        Not much, because it turns out there’s more to AI than a hypothetical sum of what we already created.

        • @Synchrome
          link
          English
          -2
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          deleted by creator

          • @LetMeEatCake
            link
            English
            5
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            That’s not what they said.

            What people are calling “AI” today is not AI in the sense of how laypeople understand it. Personally I hate the use of the term in this context and think it would have been much better to stick with Machine Learning (often just ML). Regardless, the point is that you cannot get from these system to what you think of as AI. To get there it would require new, different systems. Or changing these systems so thoroughly as to make them unrecognizable from their origins.

            If you put e.g. ChatGPT into a robotic body with sensors… you’d get nothing. It has no concept of a body. No concept of controlling the body. No concept of operating outside of the constraints within which it already operates. You could debate if it has some inhuman concept of language, but that debate is about as far as you can go.

            Actual AI in the sense of how we conceive of it at a societal level is something else. It very well may be that many years down the line that historians will look back at the ML advancements happening today as a major building block for the creation of that “true” AI of the future, but as-is they are not the same thing.

            To put it another way: what happens if you connect the algorithms controlling a video game NPC to a robotic body? Absolutely nothing. Same deal here.

          • @orphiebaby
            link
            English
            4
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            It’s not about improvement, it’s about actual AI being completely different technology, and working in a completely different way.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            31 year ago

            Not the guy you were referring to, but it’s not so much “improve” as “another paradigm shift is still needed”.

            A “robotic body with sensors” has already been around since 1999. But no matter how many sensors, no matter how lifelike and no matter how many machine learning algorithms/LLMs are thrown in, it is still not capable of independent thought. Anything that goes wrong is still due to human error in setting parameters.

            To get to a Terminator level intelligence, we need the machine to be capable of independent thought. Comparing independent thought to our current generative AI technology is like comparing a jet plane to a horse drawn carriage - you can call it “advancement”, yes, but there are many intermediate steps that need to happen. Just like an internal combustion engine is the linkage between horse-drawn carriages and planes, some form of independent thought is the link between generative AI and actual intelligent machines.

    • @stooovie
      link
      English
      -11 year ago

      True but that doesn’t keep it from screwing a lot of things up.

      • @orphiebaby
        link
        English
        61 year ago

        I’m not saying there’s nothing to be afraid of concerning today’s “AI”, but it’s not comparable to movie/book AI.

        • @stooovie
          link
          English
          -3
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Yes, sure. I meant things like employment, quality of output

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            81 year ago

            Yes, sure. I meant things like employment, quality of output

            That applies to… literally every invention in the world. Cars, automatic doors, rulers, calculators, you name it…

            • @stooovie
              link
              English
              -41 year ago

              With a crucial difference - inventors of all those knew how the invention worked. Inventors of current AIs do NOT know the actual mechanism how it works. Hence, output is unpredictable.

              • @drekly
                link
                English
                41 year ago

                Lol could you provide a source where the people behind these LLMs say they don’t know how it works?

                Did they program it with their eyes closed?

                • @[email protected]
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  21 year ago

                  they program it to learn. They can tell you exactly how it learns, but not what it learned (there are some techniques to give some small insights, but not even close to the full picture)

                  Problem is, how it behaves nepends on how it was programmed and what it learned after being trained. Since what it learned is a black box, we cannot explain their behaviour

                • @stooovie
                  link
                  English
                  0
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  Yes I can. example

                  Opposed to other technology, nobody knows the internal structure. Input A does not necessarily produce output B.

                  Whether you like it or not is irrelevant.

                  • @drekly
                    link
                    English
                    21 year ago

                    “Whether you like it or not is irrelevant.”

                    That’s a very hostile take.

                    I just think it’s wild they wouldn’t know how it works when they’re the ones who created it. How do you program something that you don’t understand?! It’s crazy.

    • @Einstein
      link
      English
      -31 year ago

      Sounds like you described a baby.

      • @orphiebaby
        link
        English
        51 year ago

        Yeah, I think there’s a little bit more to consciousness and learning than that. Today’s AI doesn’t even recognize objects, it just paints patterns.

    • @ButtholeAnnihilator
      link
      English
      -31 year ago

      Regardless of if its true AI or not (I understand its just machine learning) Cameron’s sentiment is still mostly true. The Terminator in the original film wasn’t some digital being with true intelligence, it was just a machine designed with a single goal. There was no reasoning or planning really, just an algorithm that said "get weapons, kill Sarah Connor. It wasn’t far off from an Boston Dynamics robot using machine learning to complete a task.

      • @orphiebaby
        link
        English
        3
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        You don’t understand. Our current AI? Doesn’t know the difference between an object and a painting. Furthermore, everything it perceives is “normal and true”. You give it bad data and suddenly it’s broken. And “giving it bad data” is way easier than it sounds. A “functioning” AI (like a Terminator) requires the ability to “understand” and scrutinize— not just copy what others tell it without any context or understanding, and combine results.

    • @adeoxymus
      link
      English
      -51 year ago

      That type of reductionism isn’t really helpful. You can describe the human brain to also just be pattern recognition algorithms. But doing that many times, at different levels, apparently gets you functional brains.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      -81 year ago

      I just listened to 2 different takes on AI by true experts and it’s way more than what you’re saying. If the AI doesn’t have good goals programmed in, we’re fucked.It’s also being controlled by huge corporations that decide what those goals are. Judging from the past, this is not good.

      • @orphiebaby
        link
        English
        81 year ago

        You seem to have completely missed the point of my post.

          • @orphiebaby
            link
            English
            1
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            explain to me

            It isn’t AI. It’s just a digital parrot. It just paints up text or images based on things it already saw. It has no understanding, knowledge, or context. Therefore it doesn’t matter how much data you feed it, it won’t be able to put together a poem that doesn’t sound hokey, or digital art where characters don’t have seven fingers or three feet. It doesn’t even understand what objects are and therefore how many of them there should be. They’re just pixels to the tech.

            This technology will not be able to guide a robot to “think” and take actions accordingly. It’s just not the right technology— it’s not actually AI.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        21 year ago

        If the AI doesn’t have good goals programmed in, we’re fucked

        When they built a new building at my college they decided to to use “AI” (back when SunOS ruled the world) to determine the most efficient route for the elevator to take.

        The parameter they gave it to measure was “how long does each wait to get to their floor”. So it optimized for that and found it could get it down to 0 by never letting anyone get on, so they never got to their floor, so their wait time was unset (which = 0).

        They tweaked the parameters to ensure everyone got to their floor and as far as I can tell it worked well. I never had to wait much for an elevator.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        11 year ago

        If the AI doesn’t have good goals programmed in, we’re fucked.It’s also being controlled by huge corporations that decide what those goals are.

        That’s valid, but it has nothing to do with general intelligent machines.

      • Spaniard
        link
        English
        -21 year ago

        An AI can’t be controlled by corporations, an AI will control corporations.

    • @PotjiePig
      link
      English
      -151 year ago

      Mate, a bad actor could put today’s LLM, face recognition softwares and functionality into an armed drone, show it a picture of Sara Connor and tell it to go hunting and it would be able to handle the rest. We are just about there. Call it what you want.

      • @orphiebaby
        link
        English
        111 year ago

        That sure sounds nice in your head.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        41 year ago

        LLM stands for Large Language Model. I don’t see how a model to process text is going to match faces out in the field. And either that drone is flying chest-hight, it better recognize people’s hair patterns (balding Sarah Connors beware or wear hats!).