AI Has Nothing To Do With Intelligence
AI has nothing to do with intelligence but people believe the marketing hype, mostly because we have a distorted idea of what intelligence is, largely due to the media.
Take the quiz show “Are You Smarter Than a Fifth Grader” that says in its name that it’s about whether contestants are as intelligent as a fifth grade student. What the show actually tests is who is more familiar with the grade five curriculum, grade five students or people who have not been in school for twenty tears or more. I know who I am betting on.
And take the famously super intelligent Jeopardy champions. Maybe some of these people are highly intelligent but that is not why they are Jeopardy champions because Jeopardy is not about intelligence. It is about knowing stuff, particularly the type of stuff Jeopardy asks questions about. At best it is about knowledge, not intelligence.
The Cambridge Dictionary defines intelligence as: “the ability to learn, understand, and make judgments or have opinions that are based on reason”. (Source)
I would refine that to: “the ability to understand and analyze information in order to make rational decisions based on that information”.
Intelligence is not about information it is about reasoning.
I remember what some might call the first forerunner to Alexa and other chat bots. It was called Eliza
ELIZA's creator, Weizenbaum, intended the program as a method to explore communication between humans and machines. He was surprised and shocked that individuals, including Weizenbaum's secretary, attributed human-like feelings to the computer program.[3] Many academics believed that the program would be able to positively influence the lives of many people, particularly those with psychological issues, and that it could aid doctors working on such patients' treatment.[3][13] While ELIZA was capable of engaging in discourse, it could not converse with true understanding.[14] However, many early users were convinced of ELIZA's intelligence and understanding, despite Weizenbaum's insistence to the contrary.[6] (Source)
This was not artificial intelligence and neither are the latest claimants, the large language models (LLMs).
A large language model (LLM) is a language model notable for its ability to achieve general-purpose language understanding and generation. LLMs acquire these abilities by learning statistical relationships from text documents during a computationally intensive self-supervised and semi-supervised training process.[1] LLMs are artificial neural networks following a transformer architecture.[2]
As autoregressive language models, they work by taking an input text and repeatedly predicting the next token or word.[3] Up to 2020, fine tuning was the only way a model could be adapted to be able to accomplish specific tasks. Larger sized models, such as GPT-3, however, can be prompt-engineered to achieve similar results.[4] They are thought to acquire knowledge about syntax, semantics and "ontology" inherent in human language corpora, but also inaccuracies and biases present in the corpora.[5]
Notable examples include OpenAI's GPT models (e.g., GPT-3.5 and GPT-4, used in ChatGPT), Google's PaLM (used in Bard), and Meta's LLaMA, as well as BLOOM, Ernie 3.0 Titan, and Anthropic's Claude 2. (Source)
Using statistics to mimic what a human might say or write is not reasoning and it is certainly not intelligence.
It might not be so bad if these systems did not claim to intelligent but only claimed to be able to retrieve accurate information and did that well but they are designed to NOT do that.
I remember the early Internet and search engines with advanced boolean search capability like Alta Vista and the early versions of Google before they sold their top search results to the highest bidder.
Then the Internet was mainly academic institutions and community based organizations. The information on the Internet was relatively reliable most of the time. That information is still there if you pay attention to the actual source.
LLMs could use an information base based on actual reliable sources like Encyclopedia Britannica or Wikipedia, or the collections of actual scientific journals or other respected sources.
But instead they have adopted the bigger/more is better approach feeding as much of the Internet as possible into their models, often without permission of the sources/creators. This leads to an information base dominated by misinformation and disinformation leading to results like “there is no water in the Atlantic Ocean”. But obvious errors are not the danger here but the amplification of misinformation and disinformation in the political sphere.
But it is worse. These disinformation models are proving to be even more wasteful of energy and harmful to the planet than the cryptocurrency scam and their believers/followers just as faithful and misguided. And for what. Obviously they hope to make a shitload of money from this scam.
AI is clearly not intelligent, just dangerous.
