Funny how triggering it is for some people when anyone acknowledges humans are just evolved primates doing the same pattern matching.

It's not that institutionalized people don't follow "set" pattern matches. That's why you're getting downvotes.

Some of those humans can operate with the same brain rules alright. They may even be more efficient at it than you and I may. The higher level functions is a different thing.

LOOK MAA I AM ON FRONT PAGE

That’s absolutely what it is. It’s a pattern on here. Any acknowledgment of humans being animals or less than superior gets hit with pushback.

Yeah I've always said the the flaw in Turing's Imitation Game concept is that if an AI was indistinguishable from a human it wouldn't prove it's intelligent. Because humans are dumb as shit. Dumb enough to force one of the smartest people in the world take a ton of drugs which eventually killed him simply because he was gay.

Fair, but the same is true of me. I don't actually "reason"; I just have a set of algorithms memorized by which I propose a pattern that seems like it might match the situation, then a different pattern by which I break the situation down into smaller components and then apply patterns to those components. I keep the process up for a while. If I find a "nasty logic error" pattern match at some point in the process, I "know" I've found a "flaw in the argument" or "bug in the design".

But there's no from-first-principles method by which I developed all these patterns; it's just things that have survived the test of time when other patterns have failed me.

I don't think people are underestimating the power of LLMs to think; I just think people are overestimating the power of humans to do anything other than language prediction and sensory pattern prediction.

Thank you Captain Obvious! Only those who think LLMs are like "little people in the computer" didn't knew this already.

Did you even read this garbage? It’s just words strung together without any meaning. The things it’s claiming show a fundamental lack of understanding of what it is responding to.

This didn’t prove your point at all, quite the opposite. And it wasted everyone’s time in the process. Good job, this was worthless.

Excellent, these "fallacies" are exactly as I expected - made up, misunderstanding my comment (I did not call SMBC "bad"), and overall just trying to look like criticism instead of being one. Completely worthless - but I sure can see why right wingers are embracing it!

It's funny how you think AI will help refine people's ideas, but you actually just delegated your thinking to it and let it do it worse than you could (if you cared). That's why I don't feel like getting any deeper into explaining why the AI response is garbage, I could just as well fire up GPT on my own and paste its answer, but it would be equally meaningless and useless as yours.

Saying it’ll be boring comics missed the entire point.

So what was the point exactly? I re-read that part of your comment and you're talking about "strong ideas", whatever that's supposed to be without any actual context?

Saying it is the same as google is pure ignorance of what it can do.

I did not say it's the same as Google, in fact I said it's worse than Google because it can add a hallucinated summary or reinterpretation of the source. I've tested a solid number of LLMs over time, I've seen what they produce. You can either provide examples that show that they do not hallucinate, that they have access to sources that are more reliable than what shows up on Google, or you can again avoid any specific examples, just expecting people to submit to the revolutionary tech without any questions, accuse me of complete ignorance and, no less, compare me with anti-immigrant crowds (I honestly have no idea what's supposed to be similar between these two viewpoints? I don't live in a country with particularly developed anti-immigrant stances so maybe I'm missing something here?).

The people who buy into it will get into these type of ignorant and short sighted statements just to prove things that just are not true. But they’ve bought into the hype and need to justify it.

"They’ve bought into the hype and need to justify it"? Are you sure you're talking about the anti-AI crowd here? Because that's exactly how one would describe a lot of the pro-AI discourse. Like, many pro-AI people literally BUY into the hype by buying access to better AI models or invest in AI companies, the very real hype is stoked by these highly valued companies and some of the richest people in the world, and the hype leads the stock market and the objectively massive investments into this field.

But actually those who "buy into the hype" are the average people who just don't want to use this tech? Huh? What does that have to do with the concept of "hype"? Do you think hype is simply any trend that doesn't agree with your viewpoints?

Yeah, well there are a ton of people literally falling into psychosis, led by LLMs. So it’s unfortunately not that many people that already knew it.

Of course, that is obvious to all having basic knowledge of neural networks, no?

Humans are animals. But an LLM is not an animal and has no reasoning abilities.

Hype flows in both directions. Right now the hype from most is finding issues with chatgpt. It did find the fallacies based on what it was asked to do. It worked as expected. You act like this is fire and forget. Given what this output gave me, I can easily keep working this to get better and better arguments. I can review the results and clarify and iterate. I did copy and paste just to show an example. First I wanted to be honest with the output and not modify it. Second is an effort thing. I just feel like you can't honestly tell me that within 10 seconds having that summary is not beneficial. I didn't supply my argument to the prompt, only yours. If I submitted my argument it would be better.

They aren't bullshitting because the training data is based on reality. Reality bleeds through the training data into the model. The model is a reflection of reality.

I did and it was because it didn't have the previous context. But it did find the fallacies as present. Logic is literally what a chat AI is going. A human still needs to review the output but it did what it was asked. I don't know AI programming well. But I can say that logic is algorithmic. An AI has no problem parsing an argument and finding the fallacies. It's a tool like any other.

Yeah I've always said the the flaw in Turing's Imitation Game concept is that if an AI was indistinguishable from a human it wouldn't prove it's intelligent. Because humans are dumb as shit. Dumb enough to force one of the smartest people in the world take a ton of drugs which eventually killed him simply because he was gay.

That entire paragraph is much better at supporting the precise opposite argument. Computers can beat Kasparov at chess, but they're clearly not thinking when making a move - even if we use the most open biological definitions for thinking.

Apple is significantly behind and arrived late to the whole AI hype, so of course it's in their absolute best interest to keep showing how LLMs aren't special or amazingly revolutionary.

They're not wrong, but the motivation is also pretty clear.

Yeah I've always said the the flaw in Turing's Imitation Game concept is that if an AI was indistinguishable from a human it wouldn't prove it's intelligent. Because humans are dumb as shit. Dumb enough to force one of the smartest people in the world take a ton of drugs which eventually killed him simply because he was gay.

LOOK MAA I AM ON FRONT PAGE