To elaborate a little:
Since many people are unable to tell the difference between a “real human” and an AI, they have been documented “going rogue” and acting outside of parameters, they can lie, they can compose stories and pictures based on the training received. I can’t see AI as less than human at this point because of those points.
When I think about this, I think about that being the reason as to why we cannot create so called “AGI” because we have no proper example or understanding to create it and thus created what we knew. Us.
The “hallucinating” is interesting to me specifically because that seems what is different between the AI of the past, and modern models that acts like our own brains.
I think we really don’t want to accept what we have already accomplished because we don’t like looking into that mirror and seeing how simple our logical process’ are mechanically speaking.
Exactly.
People always wanna classify AI as super smart or super dumb, similar to the human brain or randomly guessing words and doing an ok job. But that is very subjective and it’s sliding a little fader between two points that differ in definition slightly for every person.
If we actually wanted to approach the question of “how intelligent are AIs compared to humans” we would need to write a lot of word definitions first, and I’m sure the answer at the end will be just as helpful as a shoulder shrug and an unenthusiastic “about half as intelligent”. And that’s why these comparisons are stupid.
If AI is a good tool to us, great. If not, alright let’s skip and go straight to the next bigger discovery, and stop getting hung up on semantics.