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
"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.
technocrit@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 weeks ago
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.
antonim@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 weeks ago
Wow, I would deeply apologise on the behalf of all of us uneducated proles having opinions on stuff that we’re bombarded with daily through the media.
Clent@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 weeks ago
The computer science industry isn’t the authority on artificial intelligence it thinks it is. The industry is driven by a level of hubris that causes people to step beyond the bounds of science and into the realm of humanities without acknowledgment.
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.
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.
8uurg@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
Wouldn’t the algorithm that creates these models in the first place fit the bill? Given that it takes a bunch of text data, and manages to organize this in such a fashion that the resulting model can combine knowledge from pieces of text, I would argue so.
What is understanding knowledge anyways? Wouldn’t humans not fit the bill either, given that for most of our knowledge we do not know why it is the way it is, or even had rules that were - in hindsight - incorrect?
If a model is more capable of solving a problem than an average human being, isn’t it, in its own way, some form of intelligent? And, to take things to the utter extreme, wouldn’t evolution itself be intelligent, given that it causes intelligent behavior to emerge, for example, viruses adapting to external threats? What about an (iterative) optimization algorithm that finds solutions that no human would be able to find?
I would disagree, it is probably one of the most hard to define things out there, which has changed greatly with time, and is core to the study of philosophy. Every time a being or thing fits a definition of intelligent, the definition often altered to exclude, as has been done many times.
Grimy@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
Dog has a very clear definition, so when you call a sausage in a bun a “Hot Dog”, you are actually a fool.
Smart has a very clear definition, so no, you do not have a “Smart Phone” in your pocket.
Also, that is not the definition of intelligence. But the crux of the issue is that you are making up a definition for AI that suits your needs.
technocrit@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 weeks ago
Just because some dummies supposedly think that NPCs are “AI”, that doesn’t make it so.
Grimy@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
“You” applies to anyone that doesnt understand what AI means. It’s a portmanteau word for a lot of things.
Npcs ARE AI. AI doesnt mean “human level intelligence” and never did. Read the wiki if you need help understanding.
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
Kasparov’s thinking fits pretty much all biological definitions of thinking. Which is the entire point.
Llewellyn@lemm.ee 3 weeks ago
Is thinking necessarily biologic?