DeepMind’s cofounder: Generative AI is just a phase. What’s next is interactive AI.::DeepMind cofounder Mustafa Suleyman wants to build a chatbot that does a whole lot more than chat. In a recent conversation I had with him, he told me that generative AI is just a phase. What’s next is interactive AI: bots that can carry out tasks you set for them by calling on other software…

  • Blizzard@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    29
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    You don’t need a scientific genius to deduce that - even I did it! One of the most impressive things for me about ChatGPT has been the ability to “undestand” what you mean, properly communicate with you. For the time being it’s not hooked up to anything but it shouldn’t be too hard to make it translate our natural language requests (which it already “understands”) into software commands. The possibilities are endless.

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

        Meaning what? It needs Cartesian Dualist qualia floating around between its wires and transistors, or else it’s just a word vending machine? What’s the demonstrable test for understanding vs “understanding”?

        • SnipingNinja@slrpnk.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          I’m not saying I have a definition or way to get there, just that it actually hasn’t demonstrated that it actually understands (through the tasks where it fails)

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

            I still don’t understand what you mean. If you don’t have a criterion for “actually” understanding, how has it demonstrably failed?

            • SnipingNinja@slrpnk.net
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              I don’t have an exact example for you to test it out so I’ll try to explain in general terms:

              Let’s say you give a task to ChatGPT that a human can do easily but ChatGPT fails at it consistently, isn’t that proof that it doesn’t understand.

              It might be hard to grasp from this without example, but the problem with any example would be that OpenAI can become aware of a problem and tweak the algorithm to correct just that specific example.

              One example I remembered while typing this is how it fails at giving you a list of words which fit a certain criteria like having a specific number of letters. This is not the best example I had come across in the past but it still seems to fail at this one.

              Anyway, hopefully you got my point about lack of understanding.

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

                Fair enough but it just seems like a fluffy distinction.

                And I don’t think they “tweak the algorithm” so much as generate a load more training data of that one specific task to get it up to spec.

                In any case, humans make mistakes on lots of stuff too, so if the criterion for “true” understanding is to make no mistakes then humans cannot be said to understand either.

                • SnipingNinja@slrpnk.net
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  As I said, my example wasn’t the best one, but you’re right that based on it humans can be judged badly too

      • Pantoffel@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        That’s just a toolbox and in my experience a pretty limited one as well. What OP means is that Gen AI doesn’t connect to your Emails, Photoshop, your IDE, your browser, and what not with text or speech.

        Imagine not using your keyboard and mouse anymore, but only using your speech and natural language for everything (not commands, but natural language).

        Confidently interfacing with smart glasses would be a game changer for so many things.

  • TheYear2525@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    14
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    Give me that on my phone with voice control through my ear bud, and I’ll finally have something worthy of being called a PDA.

  • luciferofastora@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    1 year ago

    Right, I’ll trust a complex AI to take charge of my other apps.

    “I want to send a text to my mother”

    “Autogenerated sexting message sent”

    “WAIT NO”


    The tech enthusiast in me likes the idea. The IT professional however is very sceptical of trusting software to that extent.

    Hell, I feel a sting of uncertainty every time I use inter-app interfaces on Android. Sure, I know how it’s supposed to work, and often enough it does, but the error rate and fragmentation of standards are still too high for me to have enough faith that somehow an AI would circumvent that. We see purpose-built machines like Tesla’s autopilot fail dramatically, much less an ambitious multi-function tool.

    The above example may be strongly exaggerated, but the wealth of side effects and weird interactions between different human-made and thus typically inherently flawed tools concerns me. It’s hard, probably even impossible, to predict all the potential mishaps.

    I want to believe and I hope we’ll reach a level of maturity and QA standards where I can trust it. I like the idea. I’m an excited pessimist who would like nothing more than to be wrong.

    • SnipingNinja@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      Hell, I feel a sting of uncertainty every time I use inter-app interfaces on Android. Sure, I know how it’s supposed to work, and often enough it does

      I thought I was the only one worried about that

  • oats@110010.win
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Please no, this is incredibly dangerous. They didn’t stop at giving people AI which gave developers incredibly untrusted and deceptive code. Now they want to run this code without oversight.

    People are going to be rm -rf /* by the AI and will only then understand how stupid of an idea this is.

  • Fedizen@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    we can just say this is bullshit right? Literally inventing problems to solve.

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

    Only read the headline but I entirely agree with that conclusion. I’m interested to see where this will go.