26.3 C
Port Louis
Sunday, April 21, 2024

Download The App:

Read in French

spot_img

ChatGPT & Other AI Bots Cannot Exactly Match Human Mind, AI Expert Busts Myths

Must Read

A robotics researcher and AI expert, Rodney Brooks, deems that how people interpret the ability of OpenAI’s large language models, such as the ChatGPT, the famous chatbot, is massively amplified.

Brooks in an interview with IEEE Spectrum, technology news and analysis magazine, states that these tools do not have a higher intelligence level than blindly assumed and it’s not competent enough to challenge human intellect. He believes that humans’ predictions about the future capabilities of AI have been overpraising. 

Can AI actually equal a human mind?

In the interview, when Brooks was asked “if artificial general intelligence (AGI) on the verge of achieving a comparable level of intellectual prowess to humans?”, he replied, “No. It doesn’t have any connection to the world. It has different correlations between languages.”

Brooks’ comments have significantly pointed out the grave loopholes in AI technology and how naturally humans attach importance to their results, especially when they were made to give a human-like feel and not exactly behave, like reasoning, like humans.

Brooks explains to IEEE Spectrum, “When we observe a person’s actions, we quickly assess their broader capabilities and make judgments. However, our methods of generalizing from performance to competence do not apply to AI systems.”

An illusion 

Also, existing language technology cannot meaningfully drive out results but only give an illusion that it is doing so, resulting in confusing users.

Brooks pointed out that, “What large language models excel at is producing answers that sound correct, which is different from actually being correct.” The researcher shares his own experience of working with large language models to get help in writing complex coding but he found himself with serious problems during the process. Brooks informed IEEE Spectrum, “It provides an answer with unwavering confidence, and I tend to trust it. However, half the time, it is completely wrong. I spend two or three hours following that hint, only to realize it didn’t work, and then it suggests an entirely different approach.” “Now, that is not intelligence. It is not interaction. It is simply looking up information,” he added. 

What’s next?

If Brooks’ assumption is correct, that today’s AI technology is not as prowess as it is considered to be, then we are highly mistaken.  As AI can execute most jobs, especially entry-level and certain high-level jobs, this can lead technology-based industries to collapse and end jobs of thousands of people.

If Brooks’ comments are indeed true, then our perceptions and fears regarding generative AI is nothing but a state of mental agitation on an unprecedented level. Also, in this case, one can only imagine the destruction AI can bring to us in closer proximity.

- Advertisement -spot_img

More Articles

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

- Advertisement -spot_img

Latest Articles