Raw LLM Responses

>I don’t know that it’s fair to say that humans are only smart “relatively.” Humans are just smart relatively. We're relatively smarter than other animals because with the way evolution works, we've added brain matter that other animals lack, so generally speaking, for most cognitive tasks, we're better. Humans are vastly outperformed by some tasks by machines. Once you're that that point, you can't say humans are better because they do some things better. By that argument machines are better because they do some things better. One only has to imagine slight transhumanism to see that there could be a being vastly more intelligent than an unaugmented human. Just give your brain direct access to a graphing calculator and terabytes of photographic memory, and you'd say that the transhuman is much much smarter. >We don’t really have any evidence of anything smarter than us. Right now all AI really does is recycle human ideas, it doesn’t actually produce novel concepts, it simply compiles known concepts in a new way. That's because AIs doing human-like things are the hot thing right now. It's also putting humans on a pedestal. "Nothing is original" >The thing that separates humans is our pattern recognition and modeling abilities. Not at all. Machine learning can do pattern recognition that humans can't do. Humans are better at generalizing at things relevant for humans. Machine modeling far outpaces human capability in many many field, which is why you have CAD suites. >The baseline human is capable of taking in millions of variables without even realizing it and predicting the future near perfectly, and the ability to do that without having the exact knowledge of natural law is what makes it so impressive. Going to need a citation on millions, unless we get to count things like pixels for AI. With 3 color channels, that's only a 600x600 picture. Neural networks can do similar kinds of tasks too, without any knowledge of natural law. >Child