Comment on Mind-reading AI can translate brainwaves into written text: Using only a sensor-filled helmet combined with artificial intelligence, a team of scientists has announced they can turn a person’s thou...

knightly@pawb.social ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

• Not_mikey@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  Calling llm “big auto-complete” is like calling people “big bacteria” . It’s true that they act on the same goal, guess the next word for llm and auto-complete; survive and reproduce for people and bacteria, but they are vastly different in scale and complexity.

  Also what would AI be to you if not an llm? Cause I’d say anything that has an SAT score higher than most Americans has some form of intelligence.

  source

  • knightly@pawb.social ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    “Big Bacteria” is a much more accurate descriptor of humans than “Artificial Intelligence” is of large language models.

    This is the same problem we had with IQ testing, what the test measures is not “intelligence”, but the ability to retain and process information according to a predefined schema. This requires no intelligence at all, as demonstrated by the fact that a sufficiently large statistical model of human writing patterns can pass the SATs.

    source

    • orgrinrt@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      I’ve always wondered with stances like this, why do you assume that our “intelligence” is much different than that of llms? I mean, as much as we like to feel superior, is there anything that would really prove that our brains don’t work in a similar manner behind the curtains? What if we just get input stimuli and our mind is simply the process of figuring out the most likely answers, reactions or whatever, to that?

      I haven’t seen anything to that effect, but then again my field of study is vastly different. I’d like to be enlightened certainly!

      source

      • knightly@pawb.social ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

        LLMs are statistical models of human writing, they only offer the appearance of intelligence in the same fashion as the Chinese Room thought experiment.

        There’s nothing “intelligent” in there, just a very large set of instructions for transforming inputs into outputs.

        A sufficiently advanced model of the human brain can be “intelligent” in the same way that humans are, but this would not be “artificial” since it would necessarily employ the same “natural” processes as our brains.

        Until we have a model of “intelligence” itself, anyone claiming to have “AI” is just trying to sell you something.

        source

        • -> View More Comments
    • Not_mikey@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      This seems like circular reasoning. SAT scores don’t measure intelligence because llm can pass it which isn’t intelligent.

      Why isn’t the llm intelligent?

      Because it can only pass tests that don’t measure intelligence.

      You still haven’t answered what intelligence is or what an a.i. would be. Without a definition you just fall into the trap of “A.I. is whatever computers cant do” which has been going on for a while:

      Computers can do arithmetic but they can’t do calculus, that requires true intelligence.

      Ok computers can do calculus, but they can’t beat someone in chess, that requires true intelligence.

      Ok computers can beat us in chess, but they can’t form coherent sentences and ideas, that requires true intelligence.

      Ok computers can form coherent sentences but …

      It’s all just moving the goal post to try and preserve some exclusively human/organic claim to intelligence.

      There is one goalpost that has stayed steady, the turing test, which llm seems to have passed, at least for shorter conversation.

      source

      • knightly@pawb.social ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

        This seems like circular reasoning. SAT scores don’t measure intelligence because llm can pass it which isn’t intelligent.

        The purpose of the SAT isn’t to measure intelligence, it is to rank students on their ability to answer test questions.

        A copy of the answer key could get a perfect score, do you think that means it’s “intelligence” is equivalent to a person with perfect SATs?

        Why isn’t the llm intelligent?

        For the same reason that the SAT answer key or an instruction manual isn’t, the ability to answer questions is not the foundation of intelligence but an emergent property thereof.

        You still haven’t answered what intelligence is or what an a.i. would be.

        Computer scientists, neurologists, and philosophers can’t answer that either, or else we’d already have the algorithms we’d need to build human-equivalent AI.

        Without a definition you just fall into the trap of “A.I. is whatever computers cant do” which has been going on for a while:

        Exactly, you’re just falling into the Turing Trap instead. Just because a company can convince you that it’s program is intelligent doesn’t mean it is, or else chatbots from 10 years ago would qualify.

        There is one goalpost that has stayed steady, the turing test, which llm seems to have passed, at least for shorter conversation.

        The Turing Test is just a slightly modified version of a Victorian-era social deduction game. It doesn’t measure intelligence, but the ability to mimic a human conversation. Turing himself acknowledged this: smithsonianmag.com/…/turing-test-measures-somethi…

        source

        • -> View More Comments