AI is not smarter than the best scientist. It’s just smarter than Sam Altman. But that’s partially because Sam Altman is regressing due to his over reliance on AI.
It’s the best monkey at the typewriter.
It’s like saying books in general hold more knowledge than humans
more than sam altman.
Please Sam, put the AI in charge of your company. Pretty please
AI is a deep learning algorithm used for information retrieval with dubious accuracy.
It doesn’t think. It has no awareness or understanding. It’s not intelligent. It certainly can’t come up with something new or creative like an intelligent person can.
You may like this. “From a distance, Portrait of Edmond de Belamy, which has just sold at Christie’s in New York for $432,000 (£337,000), looks almost plausible. Up close, however, the paintwork becomes a grid of mechanical-looking dots, the man’s face a golden blur with black holes for eyes. Look into those eyes. They show no sign of feeling or life. Did a computer make this? The answer is yes. The first artwork generated by AI to be sold at Christie’s, its impressive price would seem to suggest that in future we will get computers to make art for us. Robot van Gogh will harmlessly cut its ear off and robot Picasso will be a genius, minus the misogyny. Is this the future AI art visionaries such as the French collective Obvious, which programmed this “painter” by getting it to compare its own work with 15,000 pre-20th century portraits, have in mind? Or are they just, God forbid, making a fast buck from gullible art collectors? Because believing the algorithm that knocked this up to be in any meaningful way an “artist” is like thinking your voice-interaction programme is out to get you. Dream on. Computers would need to replicate human consciousness before they could replicate the funny thing humans do called “art”. Art is a way in which human consciousness expresses itself, and is equally true of the earliest cave art, Rembrandt’s portraits and Duchamp’s urinal. And that is what is missing from Portrait of Edmond Bellamy. Art is a way humans communicate ideas, perceptions and feelings to each other. It has no existence outside the human passion to communicate. So in what meaningful sense can an AI replica of certain physical traits of old master paintings be called art? For a robot to really make art, it would need an autonomous mind that was emotional as well as rational. No AI developer has yet claimed to be anywhere near achieving that and if they ever do, their creation will probably have better things to do than paint portraits – like destroy humanity. Maybe afterwards robots will invent their own kind of art, but it won’t be some poor pastiche of human genius. It will be beyond anything we organics could imagine." guardian ai generated portrait.docx
In fairness, it can combine existing information in a way no person thought to, which is large part of working as a scientist.
It can be a powerful interdisciplinary connector, covering the blind spots of human science. Not many people can be knowledgeable in several frontier fields at once. AI can, so it will definitely help. But yes, verifying output is essential.
These types of people don’t know the difference between having an answer and understanding. It’s why when AI solves a long running math problem, it’s practically useless to us.
If the AI is so smart, why do they have to train it?
Altman Crows That AI Is Now Smarter Than the Brightest Human Scientistsfuturism.com OpenAI CEO Sam Altman claimed that AI models are now smarter than top scientists, amid controversy over its purported math breakthroughs.
If the ai is so smart, why is he up on stage marketing it instead of his ai
“smart” is subjective
‘Artificial Intelligence’ is, and always has been since the term was conjured in 1956, a marketing term for a pseudoscience.
Anyone who is impressed by the function, or output, of a LLM, to the level they believe it is in any way adjacent to intelligence, must be quarantined from the decision making processes of systems which affect anyone not similarly cognitively impaired.
must be quarantined from the decision making processes of systems which affect anyone not similarly cognitively impaired.
So we should make them a CEO of a technology firm?
If Sam believes that, will he replace himself with AI and retire already? Pretty please? … It’s so easy to catch the ultra-rich in their lies; they simply can’t be bothered to speak believably.
Thiel will replace Sam as soon as AI is good “enough”
They hooked some scientists up to some electrodes, picked the ones that glowed the brightest, and then made them take an IQ test. The AI scored higher. Some have suggested the scientists may have scored higher if they were removed from the electrodes first.
If it’s so smart, maybe they should ask it to come up with a viable business strategy, because he sure as hell hasn’t figured it out, lol.
“We have no current plans to make revenue. We have no idea how we may one day generate revenue. We have made a soft promise to investors that once we’ve built this sort of generally intelligent system, basically we will ask it to figure out a way to generate an investment return for you.” - Sam Altman
What a fucking stupid grift that is, how are they falling for it?
Funny how AI has supposedly surpassed the greatest scientists, yet the greatest scientific discovery here is always announced by the guy selling subscriptions. If it really is that smart, perhaps it could explain to Sam the difference between a peer reviewed breakthrough and a product launch.
Maybe it could explain to Sam how a statistical model cannot approximate 101% accuracy to the sample data.
If it really is that smart, perhaps it could explain to Sam the difference between a peer reviewed breakthrough and a product launch.
911, I’d like to report a murder.
High-fiving AI. i’m done with this fucking place.
To be fair to AI, the problem with Sam and OpenAI was always PEBKAC.
I feel like if sam just fucked off. Ai would be smarter, more useful, and less problematic basically over night.
I’m sorry, Sam. I can only explain it to you. I can’t understand it for you, as well.
You can lead a man to knowledge, but you can’t make him think.
Somehow I’ve not seen this before. Love it!
Love it but still using “horse” for a more gender neutral jibe.
You can lead someone to knowledge, but you can’t make them think.
We have a grammar for that.
Horse is more derogatory
So can man be
The era of “Trump says” over, finally?
Are we in “Altman says” for the next five years?
Can we just make Sam broke so the media stops faithfully recording his brain ejaculations
Would like to try his account
