zlacker

>>xnx+(OP)
I do some electrical drafting work for construction and throw basic tasks at LLMs.

I gave it a shitty harness and it almost 1 shotted laying out outlets in a room based on a shitty pdf. I think if I gave it better control it could do a huge portion of my coworkers jobs very soon

>>knolli+9P
"AI could never replace the creativity of a human"

"Ok, I guess it could wipe out the economic demand for digital art, but it could never do all the autonomous tasks of a project manager"

"Ok, I guess it could automate most of that away but there will always be a need for a human engineer to steer it and deal with the nuances of code"

"Ok, well it could never automate blue collar work, how is it gonna wrench a pipe it doesn't have hands"

The goalposts will continue to move until we have no idea if the comments are real anymore.

Remember when the Turing test was a thing? No one seems to remember it was considered serious in 2020

>>reduce+d51
> Remember when the Turing test was a thing? No one seems to remember it was considered serious in 2020

To be clear, it's only ever been a pop science belief that the Turing test was proposed as a literal benchmark. E.g. Chomsky in 1995 wrote:

  The question “Can machines think?” is not a question of fact but one of language, and Turing himself observed that the question is 'too meaningless to deserve discussion'.

>>semi-e+Lf1
The Turing test is a literal benchmark. Its purpose was to replace an ill-posed question (what does it mean to ask if a machine could "think", when we don't know ourselves what this means- and given that the subjective experience of the machine is unknowable in any case) with a question about the product of this process we call "thinking". That is, if a machine can satisfactorily imitate the output of a human brain, then what it does is at least equivalent to thinking.

"I believe that in about fifty years' time it will be possible, to programme computers, with a storage capacity of about 10^9, to make them play the imitation game so well that an average interrogator will not have more than 70 per cent chance of making the right identification after five minutes of questioning. The original question, "Can machines think?" I believe to be too meaningless to deserve discussion. Nevertheless I believe that at the end of the century the use of words and general educated opinion will have altered so much that one will be able to speak of machines thinking without expecting to be contradicted."