this post was submitted on 22 Feb 2024
488 points (96.2% liked)

Technology

59421 readers
2822 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Google apologizes for ‘missing the mark’ after Gemini generated racially diverse Nazis::Google says it’s aware of historically inaccurate results for its Gemini AI image generator, following criticism that it depicted historically white groups as people of color.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 16 points 8 months ago (5 children)

Part of the problem with talking about these things in a casual setting is that nobody is using precise enough terminology to approach the issue so others can actually parse specifically what they're trying to say.

Personally, saying the AI "knows" something implies a level of cognizance which I don't think it possesses. LLMs "know" things the way an excel sheet can.

Obviously, if we're instead saying the AI "knows" things due to it being able to frequently produce factual information when prompted, then yeah it knows a lot of stuff.

I always have the same feeling when people try to talk about aphantasia or having/not having an internal monologue.

[–] [email protected] -5 points 8 months ago (3 children)

I can ask AI models specific questions about knowledge it has, which it can correctly reply to. Excel sheets can't do that.

That's not to say the knowledge is perfect - but we know that AI models contain partial world models. How do you differentiate that from "cognizance"?

[–] [email protected] 8 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (2 children)

Omg give me a break with this complete nonsense. LLMs are not an intelligence. They are language processors. They do not "think" about anything and don't have any level of self awareness that implies cognizance. A cognizant ai would have recognized that the Nazis it was creating looked historically inaccurate, based on its training data. But guess what, it didn't do that because it's fundamentally incapable of thinking about anything.

So sick of reading this amateurish bullshit on social media.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 8 months ago

This gets the question...how do we think? Are we not just language (and other inputs as well) processors? I'm not sure the answer is "no."

I also listened to an interesting podcast, I believe it was this American life or some other npr one, about whether ai has intelligence. To avoid the just "compressed knowledge" they came up with questions that the ai almost certainly would not have found in the web. Early ai models were clearly just predicting the next word, and the example was asking it to stack a list of objects. And it just said to stack them one on top of another, in a way that would no way be stable.

However when they asked a new model to do the same, with the stipulation that it explain it's reasoning, it stacked the objects in a way that would likely be stable. Even noting that the nail on top should be placed on the head so it doesn't roll around, and laying eggs down in a grid between a book and a plank of wood so they wouldn't roll out.

Another experiment they did was take a language model and asked it to use some obscure programming language to draw a picture of a unicorn. Now this is a language model, not trained on any images.

And you know what it did? It produced a picture of a unicorn. Just in rough shapes, but even when they moved the horn and flipped it around, it was able to put it back. Without even ever seeing a unicorn, or anything even, it was able to draw a picture of one.

I don't think the answer is as simple and clear as you want it to be. And the fact that it "fucked up" on a vague prompt doesn't really prove anything. Even humans do stupid shit like this if they learn something incorrectly.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)