All fair points, and I don’t deny predictive text generation is at the core of what’s happening. I think it’s a fair statement that most people hear “predictive text” and think it’s like the suggested words in a text message, which it’s more than that.

I also don’t think Turing Tests are particularly useful long term because humans are so fallible. We too hallucinate all the time with our convictions based on false memories. Getting an AI to have what seems like an emotional response or show uncertainty or confusion in a Turing test is a great way to trick people.

The algorithm is already a black box as is the mechanics of our own intelligence. We have no idea where the ceiling is for this technology yet. This debate quickly goes into the ontological and epistemological discussion about what it means to be intelligent…if the AI predictive text generation is complex enough where you simply cannot tell a difference, then is there a meaningful difference? What if we are just insanely complex algorithms?

I also don’t trust that what the market sees in AI products is indicative of the current limits. AGI isn’t here yet, but LLMs are a scary big step in that direction.

Pragmatically, I will maintain that AI is a different form of intelligence because I think it shortcuts to better discussions around policy and how we want this tech in our lives. I would gladly welcome the news that tells me I’m wrong.

Talk to anyone who consumes Fox News daily and you’ll get incorrect predictive text generated quite confidently. You may also deny them their intelligence and lack of humanity with the fallacies they uphold.

I also think intelligence is a gradient—is an ant intelligent? What about a dog? Chimp? Who gets to draw the line?

It very may be a very complex predictive text generator that hallucinates but I’m concerned that it minimizes its capabilities for better or worse—Its ability to maintain context and has enough plasticity to reason and change its response points to something more, even if we’re at an early stage.

First, we don’t understand our own neurons enough to model them.

AI’s “neuron” or node is a math equation that takes a numeric input with a variable “weight” that affects the output. An actual neuron a cell with something like 6000 synaptic connections each and 600 trillion synapses total. How do you simulate that? I’d argue the magic of AI is how much more efficient it is comparatively with only 176 billion parameters in GPT4.

They’re two fundamentally different systems and so is the resulting knowledge. AI doesn’t need to learn like a baby, because the model is the brain. The magic of our neurons is their plasticity and our ability to freely move around in this world and be creative. AI is just a model of what it’s been fed, so how do you get new ideas? But it seems that with LLMs, the more data and parameters, the more emergent abilities. So we just need to scale it up and eventually we can raise the.

AI does pretty amazing and bizarre things today we don’t understand, and they are already using giant expensive server farms to do it. AI is super compute heavy and require a ton of energy to run. So, the cost is a rate limiting the scale of AI.

There are also issues related to how to get more data. Generative AI is already everywhere and what good s is it to train on its own shit? Also, how do you ethically or legally get that data? Does that data violate our right to privacy?

Finally, I think AI actually possess an intelligence with an ability to reason, like us. But it’s fundamentally a different form of intelligence.

Speaking as a designer, it’s important to separate the style/trend of a UI from its function. I think what you’re looking for is actually UX design.

As a discipline, User Experience uses evidence-based research to understand how and why users behave they do. This leads to specific design patterns and principles that underlie all the good UI design seen from the giants like Apple, Google, Microsoft, etc. It gives you the language to evaluate designs. This is the foundation of your UI and the rest is just style — fonts, colors, imagery and icons which is subjective and less important. I lost ambition to be a trendy UI designer, so every design looks the same, but usability will shines through. Clean, simple and accessible is timeless.

Study the articles from nngroup.com. They pretty much established the field of UX Design, with content talking about user behavior in the 1990s. https://lawsofux.com is a more attractive and consumable option, also heavily influenced by NN Group. Finally, accessible design is good design for all, not just those with disabilities. Understand the guidelines set by the W3C for accessibility, like minimum font sizes or contrast ratios for colors.

I live just outside Philadelphia, so close enough climate wise. Given that your house is raised, I think it would look good anchor the house with something full with some height. I recommend a Laurel, which is evergreen for year round color and does well in full sun. Also consider large sedge grasses flanking the stairs.

You could stop there or you can make your garden beds as deep as you want for smaller shrubs and annuals. My only design suggestion is to place plants considering it’s full grown size and not what looks best today.

There are so many choices, the best thing to do is find a locally owned garden center and talk to the staff. The one near me is staffed with landscapers and, big surprise, they love talking about plants. They will know what works best for your region and will give you tips on planting and caring.