Comment on We need to stop pretending AI is intelligent
hera@feddit.uk 3 weeks ago
Philosophers are so desperate for humans to be special. How is outputting things based on things it has learned any different to what humans do?
We observe things, we learn things and when required we do or say things based on the things we observed and learned. That’s exactly what the AI is doing.
I don’t think we have achieved “AGI” but I do think this argument is stupid.
How is outputting things based on things it has learned any different to what humans do?
Humans are not probabilistic, predictive chat models. If you think reasoning is taking a series of inputs, and then echoing the most common of those as output then you mustn’t reason very well or very often.
If you were born during the first industrial revolution, then you’d think the mind was a complicated machine. People seem to always anthropomorphize inventions of the era.
This is great
When you typed this response, you were acting as a probabilistic, predictive chat model. You predicted the most likely effective sequence of words to convey ideas. You did this using very different circuitry, but the underlying strategy was the same.
I wasn’t, and that wasn’t my process at all. Go touch grass.
I would rather smoke it than merely touch it, brother sir
Then, unfortunately, you’re even less self-aware than the average LLM chatbot.
By this logic we never came up with anything new ever, which is easily disproved if you take two seconds and simply look at the world around you. We made all of this from nothing and it wasn’t a probabilistic response.
Your lack of creativity is not a universal, people create new things all of the time, and you simply cannot program ingenuity or inspiration.
Do you think most people reason well?
The answer is why AI is so convincing.
I think people are easily fooled. I mean look at the president.
Yes, the first step to determining that AI has no capability for cognition is apparently to admit that neither you nor anyone else has any real understanding of what cognition* is or how it can possibly arise from purely mechanistic computation.
Given the paramount importance of the human senses and emotion for consciousness to “happen”
Given? Given by what? Fiction in which robots can’t comprehend the human concept called “love”?
This is always my point when it comes to this discussion. Scientists tend to get to the point of discussion where consciousness is brought up then start waving their hands and acting as if magic is real.
I haven’t noticed this behavior coming from scientists particularly frequently - the ones I’ve talked to generally accept that consciousness is somehow the product of the human brain, the human brain is performing computation and obeys physical law, and therefore every aspect of the human brain, including the currently unknown mechanism that creates consciousness, can in principle be modeled arbitrarily accurately using a computer. They see this as fairly straightforward, but they have no desire to convince the public of it.
I am more talking about listening to and reading scientists in media. The definition of consciousness is vague at best
Most people, evidently including you, can only ever recycle old ideas. Like modern “AI”. Some of us can concieve new ideas.
What new idea exactly are you proposing?
Wdym? That depends on what I’m working on. For pressing issues like raising energy consumption, CO2 emissions and civil privacy / social engineering issues I propose heavy data center tarrifs for non-essentials (like “AI”). Humanity is going the wrong way on those issues, so we can have shitty memes and cheat at school work until earth spits us out. The cost is too damn high!
And is tariffs a new idea or something you recycled from what you’ve heard before about tariffs?
What do you mean what do I mean? You were the one that said about ideas in the first place…
Pointing out that humans are not the same as a computer or piece of software on a fundamental level or form and function is hardly philosophical. It’s just basic awareness of what a person is and what a computer is. We can’t say at all for sure how things work in our brains and you are evangelizing that computers are capable of the exact same thing, but better, yet you accuse others of not understanding what they’re talking about?
counterspell@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
No it’s really not at all the same. Humans don’t think according to the probabilities of what is the likely best next word.
Zexks@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
No you think according to the chemical proteins floating around your head. You don’t even know he decisions your making when you make them.
unsw.edu.au/…/our-brains-reveal-our-choices-befor…
You’re a meat based copy machine with a built in justification box.
aesthelete@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
Except of course that humans invented language in the first place. So uh, if all we can do is copy, where do you suppose language came from? Ancient aliens?
Zexks@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
No we invented “human” language. There are dozens of other animal out there that all have their own languages, completely independant of our.
We simply refined base calls to be more and more specific. Differences evolved because people are bad at telephone and lots of people have to be special/different and use slight variations every generation.
FourWaveforms@lemm.ee 3 weeks ago
How could you have a conversation about anything without the ability to predict the word most likely to be best?