The stock market runs on feedback loops where people are trying to outguess other people that are also trying to outguess the other, that's why it's so wild.
Stocks are the worst example. Trendlines for AI has been pretty reliable for the last decade and we have a North Star that proves we haven’t hit the limit. If a human brain can exist then such intelligence artificial or not can also exist.
Can we achieve it within a practical timeframe of human civilization of, say, 10 thousand years? Or within a single lifetime (some who've worked on it early are now dead, fwiw).
Stocks are obviously a pretty bad example for your claim, because they are a clear counterpoint (in formal logic, which you appealed to, that's enough to call it a proof that trendlines do not ensure any future outcome).
And feedback loop? LLMs have gotten where they are by simply providing current state of the art at no cost to millions of people, to ensure that investment feedback loop by losing gobs of money yet keep investing. We've seen that with VC-funded companies previously too.
No. That amount of gravitational force is not realizable yet.
The human brain is on earth and exists.
>Stocks are obviously a pretty bad example for your claim, because they are a clear counterpoint (in formal logic, which you appealed to, that's enough to call it a proof that trendlines do not ensure any future outcome).
No they aren't I told you stocks are different. There are many trendlines in the world WHERE scientists use to predict things. So the fact that it's used as a statistical model makes your point completely false. Stocks have one of the most volatile movements.
>And feedback loop? LLMs have gotten where they are by simply providing current state of the art at no cost to millions of people, to ensure that investment feedback loop by losing gobs of money yet keep investing. We've seen that with VC-funded companies previously too.
>And feedback loop? LLMs have gotten where they are by simply providing current state of the art at no cost to millions of people, to ensure that investment feedback loop by losing gobs of money yet keep investing. We've seen that with VC-funded companies previously too.
That's not a feedback loop. People aren't looking at the valuation of the company and trying to bet low or high based off of other peoples attempts to do the same thing.
In stocks people literally LOOK at trendlines and bet based off of that. They both influence the trendline and they take the trendline as input into their own trading algorithm. AI is not doing this at all.
I don't think I can match the inconsistency of your "logic": human brain is on Earth so it's by definition "realizable", but fusion isn't?
"Trendlines", before being trusted by "scientists to predict things", are carefully examined and only some of them have any "probability" attached to them. Statistics is not probability (which speaks of chance for something to happen), but instead observation of past patterns. Extrapolation into the future is applied very carefully and with sufficient backing.
You also seem to suggest that OpenAI releasing ChatGPT to the public at a huge financial loss has not led to huge investment in generative AI all over the industry and all over the world since there was no "feedback loop" — my point was that this has provided a huge push by getting many smart people working on it after ChatGPT became available to everyone, thus leading to a continuing upward "trendline" in LLM development: it's as self-reinforcing as the example you give with stocks. In statistics, one aberrant huge spike like this one is usually smoothed over a longer time period: the hustlers usually look for the steepest part of the curve and promote that instead.
>I don't think I can match the inconsistency of your "logic": human brain is on Earth so it's by definition "realizable", but fusion isn't?
Another human brain can be as much as 2 feet away from you. You're it. The core of the sun you can't even touch it and it involves unimaginable forces and energy levels never generated on earth. If you can't see the consistency of my logic, then you're illogical. Plain and simple.
>"Trendlines", before being trusted by "scientists to predict things", are carefully examined and only some of them have any "probability" attached to them. Statistics is not probability (which speaks of chance for something to happen), but instead observation of past patterns. Extrapolation into the future is applied very carefully and with sufficient backing.
They have probability. Past patterns are more likely to happen in the future. Extrapolation given what information we have is the best bet. It's not a sure fire bet but it's the best one we have. Your bet of zero information, random gut feelings, anecdotal facts with zero quantification is utter bullshit.
>You also seem to suggest that OpenAI releasing ChatGPT to the public at a huge financial loss has not led to huge investment in generative AI all over the industry and all over the world since there was no "feedback loop" — my point was that this has provided a huge push by getting many smart people working on it after ChatGPT became available to everyone, thus leading to a continuing upward "trendline" in LLM development: it's as self-reinforcing as the example you give with stocks. In statistics, one aberrant huge spike like this one is usually smoothed over a longer time period: the hustlers usually look for the steepest part of the curve and promote that instead.
Did I suggest that? How about no i didn't suggest that. You suggested that. There is no feedback loop genius. AI is tech nobody has ever seen before and they invested into it because of how obviously exciting it is. There is no feedback loop of buying at the peek and selling at the dip by observing a trendline. You're just arbitrarily trying to bend the whole situation to fit the analogy and it only makes your argument worse.
I'm done with you. We can agree to disagree but I'm sorry to say anyone seeing your argument will just laugh. Good day sir.
Try that with the stock market and let us know how it goes (spoiler: many have and they are not rich).