For anyone considering reading the paper and like me don't normally read papers like this, open the PDF and think you don't have time to read it due to its length. The main part of the paper is the first 10 pages and a fairly quick read.
On to the topic here. This is an interesting example that they are using. It is fairly simplistic to understand as a human (even if we may be inclined to quickly jump to the wrong conclusion without thinking for a few seconds).
The thing that really bothers me is that I just don't know is realistically we can fix this given the current state of what these tools actually are. They are not reasoning or thinking in any sense of the word and yet a lot of people are already considering them general purpose AI. It doesn't help that in many situations it can fake it enough that it appears to be reasoning, but it's not.
What is the chance that this paper actually has any impact on the AI rollout and overhype or will just be buried and never talked about again until the next time we see how dangerous these tools are like with Google's search rollout.
On to the topic here. This is an interesting example that they are using. It is fairly simplistic to understand as a human (even if we may be inclined to quickly jump to the wrong conclusion without thinking for a few seconds).
The thing that really bothers me is that I just don't know is realistically we can fix this given the current state of what these tools actually are. They are not reasoning or thinking in any sense of the word and yet a lot of people are already considering them general purpose AI. It doesn't help that in many situations it can fake it enough that it appears to be reasoning, but it's not.
What is the chance that this paper actually has any impact on the AI rollout and overhype or will just be buried and never talked about again until the next time we see how dangerous these tools are like with Google's search rollout.