Comment by _wire_

My comment about what's "interesting" or not was an attempt cast out interesting responses as not offering a way forward to any qualitative evaluation of AI behavior. To be interesting is a quality of the those who regards, not the situation under regard.

Do you find it interesting that some LLMs routinely qualify responses to prompts to report something interesting with a statement that the response is interesting which can't reliably be suppressed by including a sub-prompt requesting suppression?

I don't, because I have no idea why I should expect any prompt to produce any sort of response.

I spent a few days goofing around with Stable Diffusion and found it frustrating because it could render a response to some prompts that that I found relevant and satisfying, but I couldn't get it to reliably render my intentions. I soon encountered obvious limits of its training set, and the community is adapting to these limits with with networks of domain-specific accessory models.

This experience greatly tempered my expectations: I see AI as a magic paintbrush or story reader. I see no evidence of thinking machine.

If we're going to establish an equivalence comparison between any AI and humans we need a theory for both.

I have yet to see a coherent theory of the AI but I believe there in such in a language I don't understand, just as there's a theory of Conway's Game of Life, which leads to continual fascination with the machine's behavior.

But I've been unable to find any theory of the human, nor will I expect any such theory, because to my eyes life looks like a realm of complexity incomparable any game.

I do have interest in seeing nerds struggle to explain AI, but am surprised that after several years no common vernacular from which a theory might be assembled has yet to appear.

An open-ended article about what AIs can't do seems hopelessly daft. It has already been formally established there are domains of what computation can never do. So to be interesting, a treatment of the limits of AI, being a form of a computer, had better start with a consideration of those domains. But this article does not, nor do any of the comments.

So whatever is going on with this discourse, it appears to me to have nothing to do with understanding of AIs.