"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.
Nanook@lemm.ee 3 weeks ago
lol is this news? I mean we call it AI, but it’s just LLM and variants it doesn’t think.
JohnEdwa@sopuli.xyz 3 weeks ago
kadup@lemmy.world 3 weeks 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.
Grimy@lemmy.world 3 weeks 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.
homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
Strangely inconsistent + smoke & mirrors = profit!
Clent@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 weeks 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.
technocrit@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 weeks ago
Just because some dummies supposedly think that NPCs are “AI”, that doesn’t make it so.
cyd@lemmy.world 3 weeks 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.
kadup@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
By that metric, you can argue Kasparov isn’t thinking during chess
Kasparov’s thinking fits pretty much all biological definitions of thinking. Which is the entire point.
technocrit@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 weeks 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 3 weeks 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 3 weeks 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.
vala@lemmy.world 3 weeks 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 3 weeks 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.
Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
A well trained model should consider both types of lime. Failure is likely down to temperature and other model settings. This is not a measure of intelligence.
JohnEdwa@sopuli.xyz 3 weeks ago
Making up answers is kinda their entire purpose. LMMs are fundamentally just a text generation algorithm, they are designed to produce text that looks like it could have been written by a human. Which they are amazing at, especially when you start taking into account how many paragraphs of instructions you can give them, and they tend to rather successfully follow.
The one thing they can’t do is verify if what they are talking about is true. If they could, they would stop being LLMs and start being AGIs.
postmateDumbass@lemmy.world 3 weeks 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 3 weeks 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 3 weeks 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.
Clent@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 weeks ago
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.
Eatspancakes84@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
I mean… “proving” is also just marketing speak. There is no clear definition of reasoning, so there’s also no way to prove or disprove that something/someone reasons.
Clent@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 weeks ago
Claiming it’s just marketing fluff is indicates you do not know what you’re talking about.
They published a research paper on it. You are free to publish your own paper disproving theirs.
At the moment, you sound like one of those “I did my own research” people except you didn’t even bother doing your own research.
Eatspancakes84@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
You misunderstand. I do not take issue with anything that’s written in the scientific paper. What I take issue with is how the paper is marketed to the general public. When you read the article you will see that it does not claim to “proof” that these models cannot reason. It merely points out some strengths and weaknesses of the models.
Melvin_Ferd@lemmy.world 3 weeks 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.
hansolo@lemmy.today 3 weeks 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 3 weeks ago
5 years from now? Or was it supposed to be 5 years ago?
Pretty sure we already have skynet.
technocrit@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 weeks 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 3 weeks 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 3 weeks 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).
MNByChoice@midwest.social 3 weeks ago
The “Apple” part. CEOs only care what companies say.
kadup@lemmy.world 3 weeks 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 3 weeks 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 3 weeks 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.
dubyakay@lemmy.ca 3 weeks 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 3 weeks 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.
Venator@lemmy.nz 3 weeks 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…