Comment on Apple just proved AI "reasoning" models like Claude, DeepSeek-R1, and o3-mini don't actually reason at all.

• kadup@lemmy.world ⁨16⁩ ⁨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.

  source

  • cyd@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨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.

    source
  • Grimy@lemmy.world ⁨15⁩ ⁨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.

    source

    • Clent@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨8⁩ ⁨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.

      source
    • homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world ⁨13⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

      Strangely inconsistent + smoke & mirrors = profit!

      source
    • technocrit@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨14⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

      Just because some dummies supposedly think that NPCs are “AI”, that doesn’t make it so.

      source

      • Grimy@lemmy.world ⁨14⁩ ⁨hours⁩ 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.

        source
• vala@lemmy.world ⁨11⁩ ⁨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.

  source

  • xthexder@l.sw0.com ⁨9⁩ ⁨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.

    source
  • postmateDumbass@lemmy.world ⁨10⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

    Honestly, i thought about the chemical energy in the materials constructing the piano and what energy burning it would release.

    source

    • xthexder@l.sw0.com ⁨9⁩ ⁨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.

      source
  • antonim@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨11⁩ ⁨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.

    source
• technocrit@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨15⁩ ⁨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

  source

  • JohnEdwa@sopuli.xyz ⁨14⁩ ⁨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.

    source

    • Endmaker@ani.social ⁨14⁩ ⁨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.

      source

      • Clent@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨6⁩ ⁨hours⁩ 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.

        source
      • antonim@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨10⁩ ⁨hours⁩ 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.

        source
  • LandedGentry@lemmy.zip ⁨14⁩ ⁨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.

    source