• R00bot@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    I feel like the amount of training data required for these AIs serves as a pretty compelling argument as to why AI is clearly nowhere near human intelligence. It shouldn’t take thousands of human lifetimes of data to train an AI if it’s truly near human-level intelligence. In fact, I think it’s an argument for them not being intelligent whatsoever. With that much training data, everything that could be asked of them should be in the training data. And yet they still fail at any task not in their data.

    Put simply; a human needs less than 1 lifetime of training data to be more intelligent than AI. If it hasn’t already solved it, I don’t think throwing more training data/compute at the problem will solve this.

    • rdri@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      There is no “intelligence”, ai is a pr word. Just a language model that feeds on a lot of data.

    • stupidcasey@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      You’ve had the entire history of evolution to get the instinct you have today.

      Nature Vs Nurture is a huge ongoing debate.

      Just because it takes longer to train doesn’t mean it’s not intelligent, kids develop slower than chimps.

      Also intelligent doesn’t really mean anything, I personally think Intelligence is the ability to distillate unusable amounts of raw data and intuit a result beneficial to one’s self. But very few people agree with me.