derek
@derek
o3 doesn’t seem that groundbreaking to me. It seems iterative. We’ve known that computers are “smarter” than us. Since the 80s. That’s why we use them. Let me know when these models show *intention* and *creativity*. That’s what makes us different. Until then they remain really, really, really good word predictors.
6 replies
0 recast
15 reactions
Daikie.eth 🎩
@daikie
Seems to me we keep moving the goal post. If we were told in 90's an algorithm read a bunch of books & crunched down scraped data, learning itself how to code and (poorly) do arithmetic people would be loosing our minds.
1 reply
0 recast
2 reactions
derek
@derek
Agreed they’d lose their minds. Two things can be true: be amazed and call it iterative. I’m extraordinarily bullish AI, but intention and creativity have always been my personal goal post for calling something AGI or sentient. What we have today is an amazing and groundbreaking 10000x iteration on the interface and capabilities of the original Eliza, Encarta, Quickbasic, and the calculator. No sarcasm there. It is amazing. But it’s not AGI. That said, it’s completely possible we do have models that show independent intentionality but companies like Anthropic and OpenAI don’t release them for safety’s sake. Which I’d completely understand (and be grateful for) as well.
0 reply
0 recast
1 reaction