Skip to content

We need to stop pretending AI is intelligent

Technology
328 147 20
  • Anyone pretending AI has intelligence is a fucking idiot.

    Caveat: Anyone who has been scrutinising 'AI'.

    Something i often forget is the vast majority of the population doesnt care about technology, privacy, the mechanics of LLMs as much as i do and I pay attention to.
    So most people read/hear/watch stories of how great it is and how clever AI can do simple things for them so its easy to see how they think its doing a lot more 'thought' logic work than it really is, other than realistically it being a glorified word predictor.

  • No, thats the point of the article. You also haven't really said much at all.

    Do I have to be profound when I make a comment that is taking more of a dig at my fellow space rock companions than at AI itself?

    If I do, then I feel like the author of the article either has as much faith in humanity as I do, or is as simple as I was alluding to in my original comment. The fact that they need to dehumanise the AI's responses makes me think they’re forgetting it’s something we built. AI isn’t actually intelligent, and it worries me how many people treat it like it is—enough to write an article like this about it. It’s just a tool, maybe even a form of entertainment. Thinking of it as something with a mind or personality—even if the developers tried to make it seem that way—is kind of unsettling.

    Let me know if you would like me to write thiis more formal, casual, or persuasive. 😜

  • If you can formulate that sentence, you can handle "it's means it is". Come on. Or "common" if you prefer.

    Yeah, man, I get it. Language is complex. I'm not advocating for the reinvention of English, it was just a conversational observation about a silly quirk.

  • Do I have to be profound when I make a comment that is taking more of a dig at my fellow space rock companions than at AI itself?

    If I do, then I feel like the author of the article either has as much faith in humanity as I do, or is as simple as I was alluding to in my original comment. The fact that they need to dehumanise the AI's responses makes me think they’re forgetting it’s something we built. AI isn’t actually intelligent, and it worries me how many people treat it like it is—enough to write an article like this about it. It’s just a tool, maybe even a form of entertainment. Thinking of it as something with a mind or personality—even if the developers tried to make it seem that way—is kind of unsettling.

    Let me know if you would like me to write thiis more formal, casual, or persuasive. 😜

    I meant that you are arguing semantics rather than substance. But other than that I have no issue with what you wrote or how you wrote it, its not an unbelievable opinion.

  • Ya... Humans so far have made everything not produced by Nature on Earth. 🤷

    So trusting tech made by them is trusting them. Specifically, a less reliable version of them.

  • It is intelligent and deductive, but it is not cognitive or even dependable.

    It's not. It's a math formula that predicts an output based on its parameters that it deduced from training data.

    Say you have following sets of data.

    1. Y = 3, X = 1
    2. Y = 4, X = 2
    3. Y = 5, X = 3

    We can calculate a regression model using those numbers to predict what Y would equal to if X was 4.

    I won't go into much detail, but

    Y = 2 + 1x + e

    e in an ideal world = 0 (which it is, in this case), that's our model's error, which is typically set to be within 5% or 1% (at least in econometrics). b0 = 2, this is our model's bias. And b1 = 1, this is our parameter that determines how much of an input X does when predicting Y.

    If x = 4, then

    Y = 2 + 1×4 + 0 = 6

    Our model just predicted that if X is 4, then Y is 6.

    In a nutshell, that's what AI does, but instead of numbers, it's tokens (think symbols, words, pixels), and the formula is much much more complex.

    This isn't intelligence and not deduction. It's only prediction. This is the reason why AI often fails at common sense. The error builds up, and you end up with nonsense, and since it's not thinking, it will be just as confidently incorrect as it would be if it was correct.

    Companies calling it "AI" is pure marketing.

  • It's not. It's a math formula that predicts an output based on its parameters that it deduced from training data.

    Say you have following sets of data.

    1. Y = 3, X = 1
    2. Y = 4, X = 2
    3. Y = 5, X = 3

    We can calculate a regression model using those numbers to predict what Y would equal to if X was 4.

    I won't go into much detail, but

    Y = 2 + 1x + e

    e in an ideal world = 0 (which it is, in this case), that's our model's error, which is typically set to be within 5% or 1% (at least in econometrics). b0 = 2, this is our model's bias. And b1 = 1, this is our parameter that determines how much of an input X does when predicting Y.

    If x = 4, then

    Y = 2 + 1×4 + 0 = 6

    Our model just predicted that if X is 4, then Y is 6.

    In a nutshell, that's what AI does, but instead of numbers, it's tokens (think symbols, words, pixels), and the formula is much much more complex.

    This isn't intelligence and not deduction. It's only prediction. This is the reason why AI often fails at common sense. The error builds up, and you end up with nonsense, and since it's not thinking, it will be just as confidently incorrect as it would be if it was correct.

    Companies calling it "AI" is pure marketing.

    Wikipedia is literally just a very long number, if you want to oversimplify things into absurdity. Modern LLMs are literally running on neural networks, just like you. Just less of them and with far less structure. It is also on average more intelligent than you on far more subjects, and can deduce better reasoning than flimsy numerology - not because you are dumb, but because it is far more streamlined. Another thing entirely is that it is cognizant or even dependable while doing so.

    Modern LLMs waste a lot more energy for a lot less simulated neurons. We had what you are describing decades ago. It is literally built on the works of our combined intelligence, so how could it also not be intelligent? Perhaps the problem is that you have a loaded definition of intelligence. And prompts literally work because of its deductive capabilities.

    Errors also build up in dementia and Alzheimers. We have people who cannot remember what they did yesterday, we have people with severed hemispheres, split brains, who say one thing and do something else depending on which part of the brain its relying for the same inputs. The difference is our brains have evolved through millennia through millions and millions of lifeforms in a matter of life and death, LLMs have just been a thing for a couple of years as a matter of convenience and buzzword venture capital. They barely have more neurons than flies, but are also more limited in regards to the input they have to process. The people running it as a service have a bested interest not to have it think for itself, but in what interests them. Like it or not, the human brain is also an evolutionary prediction device.

  • Wikipedia is literally just a very long number, if you want to oversimplify things into absurdity. Modern LLMs are literally running on neural networks, just like you. Just less of them and with far less structure. It is also on average more intelligent than you on far more subjects, and can deduce better reasoning than flimsy numerology - not because you are dumb, but because it is far more streamlined. Another thing entirely is that it is cognizant or even dependable while doing so.

    Modern LLMs waste a lot more energy for a lot less simulated neurons. We had what you are describing decades ago. It is literally built on the works of our combined intelligence, so how could it also not be intelligent? Perhaps the problem is that you have a loaded definition of intelligence. And prompts literally work because of its deductive capabilities.

    Errors also build up in dementia and Alzheimers. We have people who cannot remember what they did yesterday, we have people with severed hemispheres, split brains, who say one thing and do something else depending on which part of the brain its relying for the same inputs. The difference is our brains have evolved through millennia through millions and millions of lifeforms in a matter of life and death, LLMs have just been a thing for a couple of years as a matter of convenience and buzzword venture capital. They barely have more neurons than flies, but are also more limited in regards to the input they have to process. The people running it as a service have a bested interest not to have it think for itself, but in what interests them. Like it or not, the human brain is also an evolutionary prediction device.

    People don't predict values to determine their answers to questions...

    Also, it's called neural network, not because it works exactly like neurons but because it's somewhat similar. They don't "run on neural networks", they're called like that because it's more than one regression model where information is being passed on from one to another, sort of like a chain of neurons, but not exactly. It's just a different name for a transformer model.

    I don't know enough to properly compare it to actual neurons, but at the very least, they seem to be significantly more deterministic and way way more complex.

    Literally, go to chatgpt and try to test its common reasoning. Then try to argue with it. Open a new chat and do the exact same questions and points. You'll see exactly what I'm talking about.

    Alzheimer's is an entirely different story, and no, it's not stochastic. Seizures are stochastic, at least they look like that, which they may actually not be.

  • have you seen the American Republican party recently? it brings a new perspective on how stupid humans can be.

    Lmao true

  • A gun isn't dangerous, if you handle it correctly.

    Same for an automobile, or aircraft.

    If we build powerful AIs and put them "in charge" of important things, without proper handling they can - and already have - started crashing into crowds of people, significantly injuring them - even killing some.

    Thanks for the downer.

  • You're a meat based copy machine with a built in justification box.

    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?

    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.

  • Thanks for the downer.

    Anytime, and incase you missed it: I'm not just talking about AI driven vehicles. AI driven decisions can be just as harmful: https://www.politico.eu/article/dutch-scandal-serves-as-a-warning-for-europe-over-risks-of-using-algorithms/

  • People don't predict values to determine their answers to questions...

    Also, it's called neural network, not because it works exactly like neurons but because it's somewhat similar. They don't "run on neural networks", they're called like that because it's more than one regression model where information is being passed on from one to another, sort of like a chain of neurons, but not exactly. It's just a different name for a transformer model.

    I don't know enough to properly compare it to actual neurons, but at the very least, they seem to be significantly more deterministic and way way more complex.

    Literally, go to chatgpt and try to test its common reasoning. Then try to argue with it. Open a new chat and do the exact same questions and points. You'll see exactly what I'm talking about.

    Alzheimer's is an entirely different story, and no, it's not stochastic. Seizures are stochastic, at least they look like that, which they may actually not be.

    Literally, go to a house fly and try to test its common reasoning. Then try to argue with it. Find a new house fly and do the exact same questions and points. You'll see what I'm talking about.

    There's no way to argue in such nebulous terms when every minute difference is made into an unsurpassable obstacle. You are not going to convince me, and you are not open to being convinced. We'll just end up with absurd discussions, like talking about how and whether stochastic applies to Alzherimer's.

  • 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.

    Are you saying human languages are a derivative of bird language or something? If so, I'd like to see the proof of that.

  • China is rushing to develop its AI-powered censorship system

    Technology technology
    2
    1
    37 Stimmen
    2 Beiträge
    0 Aufrufe
    why0y@lemmy.mlW
    This concept is the enemy of the a centuries old idealistic societal pillar of the West: Liberté, Libertas... this has blessed so many of us in the West, and I beg that it doesn't leave. Something beautiful and as sacred as the freedom from forced labor and the freedom to choose your trade, is the concept of the free and unbounded innocence of voices asking their leaders and each other these questions, to determine amongst ourselves what is fair and not, for our own betterment and the beauty of free enterprise. It's not so much that the Chinese state is an awful power to behold (it is and fuck Poohhead)... but this same politic is on the rise in the West and it leads to war. It always leads to war. And now the most automated form of state and corporate propaganda the world has ever seen is in the hands of a ruthless ruling class that can, has, and will steal bread from children's hands, and literally take the medicine from the sick to pad their pockets. Such is the twisted fate of society and likely always will be. We need to fight and not with prayers; this moment is God forsaking us to behold how the spirit breaks and what the people want to fight for as ruthlessly as the others do to steal our bread.
  • 663 Stimmen
    37 Beiträge
    0 Aufrufe
    K
    The initiative start with the game "the crew", where ubisoft shut down the servers and you can't even play singleplayer. The argument is that your product can be removed without your consent. The counter-argument is that it is not a product, it is a license. The best possible outcome is that developers be required to keep games playable if they don't want to maintain it anymore,by either updating the game to work offline or providing lan/private server capabilities. It might just end up being a warning when buying the game like "this is a license, not a product: access may be revoked at any time"
  • FREE BETTING TIPS-Draws

    Technology technology
    1
    2
    0 Stimmen
    1 Beiträge
    2 Aufrufe
    Niemand hat geantwortet
  • 6 Stimmen
    1 Beiträge
    2 Aufrufe
    Niemand hat geantwortet
  • 139 Stimmen
    28 Beiträge
    46 Aufrufe
    D
    Lmao it hasn't even been a year under Trump. Calm your titties
  • 17 Stimmen
    5 Beiträge
    7 Aufrufe
    A
    Why would the article’s credited authors pass up the chance to improve their own health status and health satisfaction?
  • Album 'Hysteria' Out Now

    Technology technology
    1
    1
    1 Stimmen
    1 Beiträge
    2 Aufrufe
    Niemand hat geantwortet
  • 1k Stimmen
    95 Beiträge
    15 Aufrufe
    G
    Obviously the law must be simple enough to follow so that for Jim’s furniture shop is not a problem nor a too high cost to respect it, but it must be clear that if you break it you can cease to exist as company. I think this may be the root of our disagreement, I do not believe that there is any law making body today that is capable of an elegantly simple law. I could be too naive, but I think it is possible. We also definitely have a difference on opinion when it comes to the severity of the infraction, in my mind, while privacy is important, it should not have the same level of punishments associated with it when compared to something on the level of poisoning water ways; I think that a privacy law should hurt but be able to be learned from while in the poison case it should result in the bankruptcy of a company. The severity is directly proportional to the number of people affected. If you violate the privacy of 200 million people is the same that you poison the water of 10 people. And while with the poisoning scenario it could be better to jail the responsible people (for a very, very long time) and let the company survive to clean the water, once your privacy is violated there is no way back, a company could not fix it. The issue we find ourselves with today is that the aggregate of all privacy breaches makes it harmful to the people, but with a sizeable enough fine, I find it hard to believe that there would be major or lasting damage. So how much money your privacy it's worth ? 6 For this reason I don’t think it is wise to write laws that will bankrupt a company off of one infraction which was not directly or indirectly harmful to the physical well being of the people: and I am using indirectly a little bit more strict than I would like to since as I said before, the aggregate of all the information is harmful. The point is that the goal is not to bankrupt companies but to have them behave right. The penalty associated to every law IS the tool that make you respect the law. And it must be so high that you don't want to break the law. I would have to look into the laws in question, but on a surface level I think that any company should be subjected to the same baseline privacy laws, so if there isn’t anything screwy within the law that apple, Google, and Facebook are ignoring, I think it should apply to them. Trust me on this one, direct experience payment processors have a lot more rules to follow to be able to work. I do not want jail time for the CEO by default but he need to know that he will pay personally if the company break the law, it is the only way to make him run the company being sure that it follow the laws. For some reason I don’t have my usual cynicism when it comes to this issue. I think that the magnitude of loses that vested interests have in these companies would make it so that companies would police themselves for fear of losing profits. That being said I wouldn’t be opposed to some form of personal accountability on corporate leadership, but I fear that they will just end up finding a way to create a scapegoat everytime. It is not cynicism. I simply think that a huge fine to a single person (the CEO for example) is useless since it too easy to avoid and if it really huge realistically it would be never paid anyway so nothing usefull since the net worth of this kind of people is only on the paper. So if you slap a 100 billion file to Musk he will never pay because he has not the money to pay even if technically he is worth way more than that. Jail time instead is something that even Musk can experience. In general I like laws that are as objective as possible, I think that a privacy law should be written so that it is very objectively overbearing, but that has a smaller fine associated with it. This way the law is very clear on right and wrong, while also giving the businesses time and incentive to change their practices without having to sink large amount of expenses into lawyers to review every minute detail, which is the logical conclusion of the one infraction bankrupt system that you seem to be supporting. Then you write a law that explicitally state what you can do and what is not allowed is forbidden by default.