Sure, these grifters are shady AF about their wacky definition of “reason”… But that’s just a continuation of the entire “AI” grift.
What confuses me is that we seemingly keep pushing away what counts as reasoning. Not too long ago, some smart alghoritms or a bunch of instructions for software (if/then) was officially, by definition, software/computer reasoning. Logically, CPUs do it all the time. Suddenly, when AI is doing that with pattern recognition, memory and even more advanced alghoritms, it’s no longer reasoning? I feel like at this point a more relevant question is “What exactly is reasoning?”. Before you answer, understand that most humans seemingly live by pattern recognition, not reasoning.
technocrit@lemmy.dbzer0.com 15 hours ago
MangoCats@feddit.it 18 hours ago
I think as we approach the uncanny valley of machine intelligence, it’s no longer a cute cartoon but a menacing creepy not-quite imitation of ourselves.
technocrit@lemmy.dbzer0.com 14 hours ago
It’s just the internet plus some weighted dice. Nothing to be afraid of.
stickly@lemmy.world 16 hours ago
If you want to boil down human reasoning to pattern recognition, the sheer amount of stimuli and associations built off of that input absolutely dwarfs anything an LLM will ever be able to handle. It’s like comparing PhD reasoning to a dog’s reasoning.
While a dog can learn some interesting tricks and the smartest dogs can solve simple novel problems, there are hard limits. They simply lack a strong metacognition and the ability to make simple logical inferences (eg: why they fail at the shell game).
Now we make that chasm even larger by cutting the stimuli to a fixed token limit. An LLM can do some clever tricks within that limit, but it’s designed to do exactly those tricks and nothing more. To get anything resembling human ability you would have to design something to match human complexity, and we don’t have the tech to make a synthetic human.