How are you defining simulation? We can already generate images, videos, 3D models, text, interpret data and train models on particular data to base any of that generation on with currenly available platforms.
AI is already being used to assist simulation. One team used it to train robots by taking photos of a room and having the AI simulations train the robot on movements virtually instead of having to physically repeat the tasks in a real space. A quick search will yield many examples of the work being done that will allow the types of simulations you don’t see now being done in 5-10 years.
You are confusing the wider field of machine learning, which has been developing in strides throughout 2010s (and before that really) without the media overhyping it to the extent that people think machines can think now, and LLMs, which birthed the media hype cycle that is the subject of criticism in this thread.
Of course LLMs aren’t a simulation of consciousness with the same abilities of a human, the idea is that if a model was trained first on Marxist theory and history before taking in more information through that perspective there could be a point where this can be used to simulate economic models that would be useful for economic planning.
You couldn’t make it any more confusing than talking about LLMs and economic model simulation in a single sentence then.
Is it confusing or are you just so locked in on your special interest that you are ignoring the context? I made a comment about a future CPC AI that I have imagined for fun, someone responded to inform me about how LLMs work, which isn’t what I was talking about, I responded saying of course that is true, then elaborated the idea they had misunderstood in my original comment.
You even left out the part where I clarified that LLMs as they stand are a part of paving the way towards the idea I brought up. If something like what I have imagined for kicks is ever made, LLMs will certainly be a part of its development.
I’m sure I could have been more concise but considering you used the word “gaslighting” to describe what you feel my comment was, it seems like you just reaching heavily for the outcomes you seek
It appears to be confusing because other people also read your comments in the same way as me. Thank you for clarifying though, I understand that it must be frustrating getting your thoughts hijacked like that! Before I say anything else, I’d also like to clarify that, in my first comment, I didn’t mean your comment in particular – I was replying to someone who already replied to you after all – but a wider trend I can’t describe more specifically without naming names, which I don’t want to do. With that being said,
LLMs will certainly be a part of its development.
Why certainly? That’s the point where what you are saying now can feel like part of that LLM hype bullshit because I don’t see how a chatbot can help a planned economy. Other machine learning models, sure, and I’ve fantasised about this before too, but LLMs seem to be orthogonal to this use case. Or do you rather mean that the insights obtained while developing LLMs can help us towards those better machine learning applications?
Yet others are not reading it that way, so maybe there are multiple people who are just skimming over what I said to find what they want to go in on.
I appreciate you clarifying your original comment.
Or do you rather mean that the insights obtained while developing LLMs can help us towards those better machine learning applications?
Yes, exactly this. I don’t think the future technology we have both fantasized about is just a beefed up chat gpt, but that the field of machine learning as a whole will advance and LLMs are a part of that process.
my response to the OP was about a fictional communist AI to save humanity, clearly riffing on the OP’s title, which prompted all the debate perverts to come out and make sure everyone understands that LLMs aren’t actually HAL 9000.
How are you defining simulation? We can already generate images, videos, 3D models, text, interpret data and train models on particular data to base any of that generation on with currenly available platforms.
dumping out scrabble tiles doesn’t simulate systems.
AI is already being used to assist simulation. One team used it to train robots by taking photos of a room and having the AI simulations train the robot on movements virtually instead of having to physically repeat the tasks in a real space. A quick search will yield many examples of the work being done that will allow the types of simulations you don’t see now being done in 5-10 years.
You are confusing the wider field of machine learning, which has been developing in strides throughout 2010s (and before that really) without the media overhyping it to the extent that people think machines can think now, and LLMs, which birthed the media hype cycle that is the subject of criticism in this thread.
My original comment was about AI, other people brought up LLMs in response to that. I’m not confusing anything.
You couldn’t make it any more confusing than talking about LLMs and economic model simulation in a single sentence then.
Is it confusing or are you just so locked in on your special interest that you are ignoring the context? I made a comment about a future CPC AI that I have imagined for fun, someone responded to inform me about how LLMs work, which isn’t what I was talking about, I responded saying of course that is true, then elaborated the idea they had misunderstood in my original comment.
You even left out the part where I clarified that LLMs as they stand are a part of paving the way towards the idea I brought up. If something like what I have imagined for kicks is ever made, LLMs will certainly be a part of its development.
I’m sure I could have been more concise but considering you used the word “gaslighting” to describe what you feel my comment was, it seems like you just reaching heavily for the outcomes you seek
It appears to be confusing because other people also read your comments in the same way as me. Thank you for clarifying though, I understand that it must be frustrating getting your thoughts hijacked like that! Before I say anything else, I’d also like to clarify that, in my first comment, I didn’t mean your comment in particular – I was replying to someone who already replied to you after all – but a wider trend I can’t describe more specifically without naming names, which I don’t want to do. With that being said,
Why certainly? That’s the point where what you are saying now can feel like part of that LLM hype bullshit because I don’t see how a chatbot can help a planned economy. Other machine learning models, sure, and I’ve fantasised about this before too, but LLMs seem to be orthogonal to this use case. Or do you rather mean that the insights obtained while developing LLMs can help us towards those better machine learning applications?
Yet others are not reading it that way, so maybe there are multiple people who are just skimming over what I said to find what they want to go in on.
I appreciate you clarifying your original comment.
Yes, exactly this. I don’t think the future technology we have both fantasized about is just a beefed up chat gpt, but that the field of machine learning as a whole will advance and LLMs are a part of that process.
if you made a comment about AGI on a post about an LLM and only said “AI” there is zero context clue for us to think you meant a different topic.
my response to the OP was about a fictional communist AI to save humanity, clearly riffing on the OP’s title, which prompted all the debate perverts to come out and make sure everyone understands that LLMs aren’t actually HAL 9000.
that sounds like not an LLM