On virtually any subject, peoples' opinions differ. In our present society, it is seemingly hard to get people to agree the sky is blue, let alone in debates on more esoteric topics. However, I was surprised at the various takes on the potential of ChatGPT and other artificial intelligences who seem to have the potential to surpass the human brain.
The most common argument against these AI is that for all their abilities, they mostly rely on pattern recognition and are derivative rather than creative. These computers are able to generate high school level writing and may soon match college and indeed PhD level writing. At what point will critics take AI potential seriously. Even if the descendants of ChatGPT solve some intractable problems, will diehard human apologists belittle the accomplishments?
Over at Kevin Drum's blog, Jabberwocking, Drum makes the point most humans are even less creative than present day AI and that there is nothing transcendent about our grey matter. He seems to be saying that outside of a smattering of geniuses throughout history, most of humanity cannot even match ChatGPT and its ilk. When a computer matches or exceeds an Einsteinian level of intelligence we will need to change the way we think about humans and machines. Drum feels that reckoning may come sooner than later.
No comments:
Post a Comment