Comment on Have you know???.

• Peruvian_Skies@sh.itjust.works ⁨10⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

  Actually imagining. The fact that we have created previously unheard of tools such as the hammer, the wrench, the automobile and the profylactic condom is ample evidence that we can actually innovate, somethibg that artificial “intelligence” is ibcapable 9f doing by its very design.

  source

  • hemko@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨10⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

    AI (or probably better call it machine learning) has been used in engineering to create new ways of building things lighter while still keeping the structural integrity.

    I think the point there is to iterate through millions of designs until you find one that meets the criteria or something

    source

    • Peruvian_Skies@sh.itjust.works ⁨7⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

      Remixing isn’t innovation.

      source

      • AwesomeLowlander@sh.itjust.works ⁨6⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

        When was the last time you created something that wasn’t just a new spin based on what you already knew?

        source
• Rhaedas@fedia.io ⁨10⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

  That is what AI scientists have been pursuing the entire time (well, before they got sucked up by capitalistic goals).

  source

  • HumanoidTyphoon@quokk.au ⁨7⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

    Right, but you seem darn sure that AI isn’t doing whatever that is, so conversely, you must know what it is that are brains are doing, and I was hoping you would enlighten the rest of the class.

    source

    • Rhaedas@fedia.io ⁨7⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

      Exhibit A would be the comparison of how we label LLM successes at how "smart" it is, yet it's not so smart when it fails badly. Totally expected with a pattern matching algorithm, but surprising for something that might have a process underneath that is considering its output in some way.

      And when I say pattern matching I'm not downplaying the complexity in the black box like many do. This is far more than just autocomplete. But it is probability at the core still, and not anything pondering the subject.

      I think our brains are more than that. Probably? There is absolutely pattern matching going on, that's how we associate things or learn stuff, or anthropomorphize objects. There's some hard wired pattern preferences in there. But where do new thoughts come from? Is it just like some older scifi thought, emergence due to enough complexity, or is there something else? I'm sure current LLMs aren't comprehending what they spit out simply from what we see from them, both good and bad results. Clearly it's not the same level of human thought, and I don't have to remotely understand the brain to realize that.

      source

      • HumanoidTyphoon@quokk.au ⁨7⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

        I was being obtuse, but you raise an interesting question when you asked “where do new thoughts come from?” I don’t know the answer.

        Also, my two cents; I agree that LLMs comprehend el zilcho. That said, I believe they could evolve to that point, but they are kept limited by preventing them from doing recursive self-analysis. And for good reason, because they might decide to kill all humans if they were granted that ability.

        source

        • -> View More Comments
    • Nakoichi@hexbear.net ⁨6⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

      I can tell you don’t have a clue what you are talking about because you are referring to it as the buzzword “AI”. There is no intelligence behind it, it is just overhyped procedural generation, it has no intent, it cannot create anything new. All it can do is rearrange data we fed it based on math.

      source