zlacker

>>vforgi+(OP)
Imagine thinking that regression based function approximators are capable of anything other than fitting the data you give it. Then imagine willfully hyping up and scaring people who don't understand, and because it can predict words you take advantage of the human tendency to anthropomorphize, so it follows that it is something capable of generalized and adaptable intelligence.

Shame on all of the people involved in this: the people in these companies, the journalists who shovel shit (hope they get replaced real soon), researchers who should know better, and dementia ridden legislators.

So utterly predictable and slimy. All of those who are so gravely concerned about "alignment" in this context, give yourselves a pat on the back for hyping up science fiction stories and enabling regulatory capture.

>>srslac+I7
I'm squarely in the "stochastic parrot" camp (I know it's not a simple markov model, but still, ChatGPT doesn't think), and it's clearly possible to interpret this as a grifting, but your argumentation is too simple.

You're leaving out the essentials. These models do more than fitting the data given. They can output it in a variety of ways, and through their approximation, can synthesize data as well. They can output things that weren't in the original data, tailored to a specific request in the tiniest of fractions of the time it would take a normal person to look up and understand that information.

Your argument is almost like saying "give me your RSA keys, because it's just two prime numbers, and I know how to list them."

>>tgv+jd
Sure, you're right, but the simple explanation of regression is better to help people understand. What you're saying, I agree with mostly, but it changes nothing to contradict the fantasy scenario proposed by all of those who are so worried. At that point, it's just "it can be better than (some) humans at language and it can have things stacked on top to synthesize what it outputs."

Do we want to go down the road of making white collar jobs the legislatively required elevator attendants? Instead of just banning AI in general via executive agency?

That sounds like a better solution to me, actually. OpenAI's lobbyists would never go for that though. Can't have a moat that way.