Proving it matters. Science is constantly proving any other thing that people believe is obvious because people have an uncanning ability to believe things that are false. Some people will believe things long after science has proven them false.
Nanook@lemm.ee 21 hours ago
lol is this news? I mean we call it AI, but it’s just LLM and variants it doesn’t think.
Clent@lemmy.dbzer0.com 11 hours ago
JohnEdwa@sopuli.xyz 20 hours ago
"It’s part of the history of the field of artificial intelligence that every time somebody figured out how to make a computer do something—play good checkers, solve simple but relatively informal problems—there was a chorus of critics to say, ‘that’s not thinking’." -Pamela McCorduck´. It’s called the AI Effect.
kadup@lemmy.world 19 hours ago
That entire paragraph is much better at supporting the precise opposite argument. Computers can beat Kasparov at chess, but they’re clearly not thinking when making a move - even if we use the most open biological definitions for thinking.
cyd@lemmy.world 7 hours ago
By that metric, you can argue Kasparov isn’t thinking during chess, either. A lot of human chess “thinking” is recalling memorized openings, evaluating positions many moves deep, and other tasks that map to what a chess engine does. Of course Kasparov is thinking, but then you have to conclude that the AI is thinking too. Thinking isn’t a magic process, nor is it tightly coupled to human-like brain processes as we like to think.
Grimy@lemmy.world 19 hours ago
No, it shows how certain people misunderstand the meaning of the word.
You have called npcs in video games “AI” for a decade, yet you were never implying they were somehow intelligent. The whole argument is strangely inconsistent.
Clent@lemmy.dbzer0.com 11 hours ago
Intellegence has a very clear definition.
It’s requires the ability to acquire knowledge, understand knowledge and use knowledge.
No one has been able to create an system that can understand knowledge, therefor me none of it is artificial intelligence. Each generation is merely more and more complex knowledge models. Useful in many ways but never intelligent.
homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world 17 hours ago
Strangely inconsistent + smoke & mirrors = profit!
technocrit@lemmy.dbzer0.com 18 hours ago
Just because some dummies supposedly think that NPCs are “AI”, that doesn’t make it so.
technocrit@lemmy.dbzer0.com 18 hours ago
There’s nothing more pseudo-scientific than “intelligence” maximization. I’m going to write a program to play tic-tac-toe. If y’all don’t think it’s “AI”, then you’re just haters. Nothing will ever be good enough for y’all. You want scientific evidence of intelligence?!?! I can’t even define intelligence so there! \s
JohnEdwa@sopuli.xyz 18 hours ago
It is. And has always been. “Artificial Intelligence” doesn’t mean a feeling thinking robot person (that would fall under AGI), it’s a vast field of research in computer science with many, many things under it.
Endmaker@ani.social 18 hours ago
ITT: people who obviously did not study computer science or AI at at least an undergraduate level.
Y’all are too patient. I can’t be bothered to spend the time to give people free lessons.
LandedGentry@lemmy.zip 18 hours ago
Yeah that’s exactly what I took from the above comment as well.
I have a pretty simple bar: until we’re debating the ethics of turning it off or otherwise giving it rights, it isn’t intelligent. No it’s not scientific, but it’s a hell of a lot more consistent than what all the AI evangelist espouse.
vala@lemmy.world 15 hours ago
Yesterday I asked an LLM “how much energy is stored in a grand piano?” It responded with saying there is no energy stored in a grad piano because it doesn’t have a battery.
Any reasoning human would have understood that question to be referring to the tension in the strings.
Another example is asking “does line cause kidney stones?”. It didn’t assume I mean lime the mineral and went with lime the citrus fruit instead.
Once again a reasoning human would assume the question is about the mineral.
Ask these questions again in a slightly different way and you might get a correct answer, but it won’t be because the LLM was thinking.
xthexder@l.sw0.com 13 hours ago
I’m not sure how you arrived at lime the mineral being a more likely question than lime the fruit. I’d expect someone asking about kidney stones would also be asking about foods that are commonly consumed.
This kind of just goes to show there’s multiple ways something can be interpreted. Maybe a smart human would ask for clarification, but for sure AIs today will just happily spit out the first answer that comes up. LLMs are extremely “good” at making up answers to leading questions, even if it’s completely false.
postmateDumbass@lemmy.world 13 hours ago
Honestly, i thought about the chemical energy in the materials constructing the piano and what energy burning it would release.
xthexder@l.sw0.com 13 hours ago
The tension of the strings would actually be a pretty miniscule amount of energy too, since there’s very little stretch to a piano wire, the force might be high, but the potential energy/work done to tension the wire is low (done by hand with a wrench).
Compared to burning a piece of wood, which would release orders of magnitude more energy.
antonim@lemmy.dbzer0.com 15 hours ago
But 90% of “reasoning humans” would answer just the same. Your questions are based on some non-trivial knowledge of physics, chemistry and medicine that most people do not possess.
Melvin_Ferd@lemmy.world 21 hours ago
This is why I say these articles are so similar to how right wing media covers issues about immigrants.
There’s some weird media push to convince the left to hate AI. Think of all the headlines for these issues. There are so many similarities. They’re taking jobs. They are a threat to our way of life. The headlines talk about how they will sexual assault your wife, your children, you. Threats to the environment. There’s articles like this where they take something known as twist it to make it sound nefarious to keep the story alive and avoid decay of interest.
Then when they pass laws, we’re all primed to accept them removing whatever it is that advantageous them and disadvantageous us.
technocrit@lemmy.dbzer0.com 18 hours ago
Then when they pass laws, we’re all primed to accept them removing whatever it is that advantageous them and disadvantageous us.
You mean laws like this? jfc.
Melvin_Ferd@lemmy.world 17 hours ago
Literally what I’m talking about. They have been pushing anti AI propaganda to alienate the left from embracing it while the right embraces it. You’re proving my point.
antonim@lemmy.dbzer0.com 14 hours ago
That depends on your assumption that the left would have anything relevant to gain by embracing AI (whatever that’s actually supposed to mean).
hansolo@lemmy.today 20 hours ago
Because it’s a fear-mongering angle that still sells. AI has been a vehicle for scifi for so long that trying to convince Boomers that of won’t kill us all is the hard part.
I’m a moderate user for code and skeptic of LLM abilities, but 5 years from now when we are leveraging ML models for groundbreaking science and haven’t been nuked by SkyNet, all of this will look quaint and silly.
technocrit@lemmy.dbzer0.com 18 hours ago
5 years from now? Or was it supposed to be 5 years ago?
Pretty sure we already have skynet.
MNByChoice@midwest.social 21 hours ago
The “Apple” part. CEOs only care what companies say.
kadup@lemmy.world 19 hours ago
Apple is significantly behind and arrived late to the whole AI hype, so of course it’s in their absolute best interest to keep showing how LLMs aren’t special or amazingly revolutionary.
They’re not wrong, but the motivation is also pretty clear.
homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world 17 hours ago
“Late to the hype” is actually a good thing. Gen AI is a scam wrapped in idiocy wrapped in a joke. That Apple is slow to ape the idiocy of microsoft is just fine.
MCasq_qsaCJ_234@lemmy.zip 18 hours ago
They need to convince investors that this delay wasn’t due to incompetence. The problem will only be somewhat effective as long as there isn’t an innovation that makes AI more effective.
If that happens, Apple shareholders will, at best, ask the company to increase investment in that area or, at worst, to restructure the company, which could also mean a change in CEO.
Venator@lemmy.nz 6 hours ago
Apple always arrives late to any new tech, doesn’t mean they haven’t been working on it behind the scenes for just as long though…
dubyakay@lemmy.ca 19 hours ago
Maybe they are so far behind because they jumped on the same train but then failed at achieving what they wanted based on the claims. And then they started digging around.
Clent@lemmy.dbzer0.com 11 hours ago
Yes, Apple haters can’t admit nor understand it but Apple doesn’t do pseudo-tech.
They may do silly things, they may love their 100% mark up but it’s all real technology.
The AI pushers or today are akin to the pushers of paranormal phenomenon from a century ago. These pushers want us to believe, need us to believe it so they can get us addicted and extract value from our very existence.