Flag

We stand with Ukraine and our team members from Ukraine. Here are ways you can help

Become a member
Home ›› LLM? More Like “Limited” Language Model with Emily M. Bender, University of Washington

LLM? More Like “Limited” Language Model with Emily M. Bender, University of Washington

by Josh Tyson
1 min read
Share this post on
Tweet
Share
Post
Share
Email
Print

Save

On this episode of the Invisible Machines podcast, Robb and Josh welcome Emily M. Bender, a Linguistics Professor at the University of Washington and co-author of the Stochastic Parrots paper from 2021 that prompted Sam Altman to tweet “i am a stochastic parrot, and so r u.” According to Bender, Altman totally missed the point.

Having worked in computational linguistics for more than 20 years, she’s a staunch critic of LLMs like OpenAI’s GPT models. Emily is also co-host of the Mystery AI Hype Theater 3000 podcast, and she joins Robb and Josh for a provocative conversation about the limitations and dangers associated with large language models.

Check out the episode here.

post authorJosh Tyson

Josh Tyson
Josh Tyson is the co-author of the first bestselling book about conversational AI, Age of Invisible Machines. He is also the Director of Creative Content at OneReach.ai and co-host of both the Invisible Machines and N9K podcasts. His writing has appeared in numerous publications over the years, including Chicago Reader, Fast Company, FLAUNT, The New York Times, Observer, SLAP, Stop Smiling, Thrasher, and Westword. 

Tweet
Share
Post
Share
Email
Print

Related Articles

Flux.1 is a Mind-Blowing Open-Weights AI Image Generator with 12B Parameters

  • AI Image Generator, Artificial Intelligence, Technology

Discover how Flux.1, with its groundbreaking 12 billion parameters, sets a new benchmark in AI image generation. This article explores its advancements over Midjourney and Dall-E 3, showcasing its unmatched detail and prompt accuracy. Don’t miss out on seeing how this latest model redefines what’s possible in digital artistry!

Article by Jim Clyde Monge
IDEAS IN BRIEF
Flux.1 is a Mind-Blowing Open-Weights AI Image Generator with 12B Parameters
  • This article examines Flux.1’s 12 billion parameters and its advancements over Midjourney and Dall-E 3. Highlights its superior image detail and prompt adherence.
  • The piece explores the shift of developers from Stability AI to Black Forest Labs and how this led to Flux.1. Analyzes the innovation impact.
  • It compares Flux.1 with Midjourney V6, Dall-E 3, and SD3 Ultra, focusing on visual quality, prompt coherence, and diversity.
  • The guide explains how to access Flux.1 via Replicate, HuggingFace, and Fal. Covers the different models—Pro, Dev, Schnell—and their uses.
  • The article investigates Flux.1’s capabilities in generating photorealistic and artistic images with examples of its realism and detailed rendering.
Read Article →
Share
Share:Flux.1 is a Mind-Blowing Open-Weights AI Image Generator with 12B Parameters
5 min read

Why Computers Can’t Be Conscious

  • Artificial Intelligence, Consciousness, Neuroscience, Philosophy, Robotics

Is true consciousness in computers a possibility, or merely a fantasy? The article delves into the philosophical and scientific debates surrounding the nature of consciousness and its potential in AI. Explore why modern neuroscience and AI fall short of creating genuine awareness, the limits of current technology, and the profound philosophical questions that challenge our understanding of mind and machine. Discover why the pursuit of conscious machines might be more about myth than reality.

Article by Peter D'Autry
IDEAS IN BRIEF
Why Computers Can’t Be Conscious
  • The article examines why computers, despite advancements, cannot achieve consciousness like humans. It challenges the assumption that mimicking human behavior equates to genuine consciousness.
  • It critiques the reductionist approach of equating neural activity with consciousness and argues that the “hard problem” of consciousness remains unsolved. The piece also discusses the limitations of both neuroscience and AI in addressing this problem.
  • The article disputes the notion that increasing complexity in AI will lead to consciousness, highlighting that understanding and experience cannot be solely derived from computational processes.
  • It emphasizes the importance of physical interaction and the lived experience in consciousness, arguing that AI lacks the embodied context necessary for genuine understanding and consciousness.
Read Article →
Share
Share:Why Computers Can’t Be Conscious
18 min read

Tell us about you. Enroll in the course.

    ✕

    Join 740,000 designers, thinkers, and doers.

    Become a member

    This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website. Check our privacy policy and

    Accept policy