It is and it isn't. Again, the whole thing is super vague. Machine vision or pattern seeking algorithms do not try to imitate any human behavior, but they fall under AI.

Let me put it this way: Things that try to imitate human behavior or intelligence are AI, but not all AI is about trying to imitate human behavior or intelligence.

Oh I'm aware of the potential pitfalls but it's something I'm willing to risk to stick it to insurance. I wouldn't even carry it if it wasn't required by law. I have the funds to cover what they would cover.

The dot does not care. It can't even care. I doesn't even know it exists. I can't know shit.

The other thing that most people don't focus on is how we train LLMs.

We're basically building something like a spider tailed viper. A spider tailed viper is a kind of snake that has a growth on its tail that looks a lot like a spider. It wiggles it around so it looks like a spider, convincing birds they've found a snack, and when the bird gets close enough the snake strikes and eats the bird.

Now, I'm not saying we're building something that is designed to kill us. But, I am saying that we're putting enormous effort into building something that can fool us into thinking it's intelligent. We're not trying to build something that can do something intelligent. We're instead trying to build something that mimics intelligence.

What we're effectively doing is looking at this thing that mimics a spider, and trying harder and harder to tweak its design so that it looks more and more realistic. What's crazy about that is that we're not building this to fool a predator so that we're not in danger. We're not doing it to fool prey, so we can catch and eat them more easily. We're doing it so we can fool ourselves.

It's like if, instead of a spider-tailed snake, a snake evolved a bird-like tail, and evolution kept tweaking the design so that the tail was more and more likely to fool the snake so it would bite its own tail. Except, evolution doesn't work like that because a snake that ignored actual prey and instead insisted on attacking its own tail would be an evolutionary dead end. Only a truly stupid species like humans would intentionally design something that wasn't intelligent but mimicked intelligence well enough that other humans preferred it to actual information and knowledge.

I'll be pedantic, but yeah. It's all transistors all the way down, and transistors are pretty much chained if/then switches.

If you have the funds you could self insure. You'd need to look up the details for your jurisdiction, but the gist of it is you keep the amount required coverage in an account that you never touch until you need to pay out.

So you trust your slm more than your fellow humans?

So why is a real “thinking” AI likely impossible? Because it’s bodiless. It has no senses, no flesh, no nerves, no pain, no pleasure.

This is not a good argument.

I think the point is that this is not the path to general intelligence. This is more like cheating on the Turing test.

That is not really true. Yes, there are jump instructions being executed when you run interference on a model, but they are in no way related to the model itself.

The model is data. It needs to be operated on to get information out. That means lots of JMPs.

If someone said viewing a gif is just a bunch of if-else's, that's also true. That the data in the gif isn't itself a bunch of if-else's isn't relevant.

Executing LLM'S is particularly JMP heavy. It's why you need massive fast ram because caching doesn't help them.

Dude chatbots lie about their "internal reasoning process" because they don't really have one.

Writing is an offshoot of verbal language, which during construction for people almost always has more to do with sound and personal style than the popularity of words. It's not uncommon to bump into individuals that have a near singular personal grammar and vocabulary and that speak and write completely differently with a distinct style of their own. Also, people are terrible at probabilities.

As a person, I can also learn a fucking concept and apply it without having to have millions of examples of it in my "training data". Because I'm a person not a fucking statistical model.

But you know, you have to leave your house, touch grass, and actually listen to some people speak that aren't talking heads on television in order to discover that truth.

May I present to you:

The Marriam-Webster Dictionary

Definition of ARTIFICIAL

The meaning of ARTIFICIAL is made, produced, or done by humans especially to seem like something natural : man-made. How to use artificial in a sentence.

(www.merriam-webster.com)

Definition #3b

If you don't think humans can conceive of new ideas wholesale, then how do you think we ever invented anything (like, for instance, the languages that chat bots write)?

Also, you're the one with the burden of proof in this exchange. It's a pretty hefty claim to say that humans are unable to conceive of new ideas and are simply chatbots with organs given that we created the freaking chat bot you are convinced we all are.

You may not have new ideas, or be creative. So maybe you're a chatbot with organs, but people who aren't do exist.

Llms are really good relational databases, not an intelligence, imo

Pretty low bar honestly.

The book The Emperors new Mind is old (1989), but it gave a good argument why machine base AI was not possible. Our minds work on a fundamentally different principle then Turing machines.

Hmm I have daydreamed about this scenario. I didn't realize it was a thing. Thanks, I'll check into it, though I wouldn't doubt if it's not a thing in my dystopian red flyover state.

Edit: Yeah, you have to be the registered owner of 25 or more vehicles to qualify for self insurance in my state. So, dealers and rich people only, unfortunately.

Word roots say they have a point though. Artifice, Artificial etc. I think the main problem with the way both of the people above you are using this terminology is that they're focusing on the wrong word and how that word is being conflated with something it's not.

LLM's are artificial. They are a man made thing that is intended to fool man into believing they are something they aren't. What we're meant to be convinced they are is sapiently intelligent.

Mimicry is not sapience and that's where the argument for LLM's being real honest to God AI falls apart.

Sapience is missing from Generative LLM's. They don't actually think. They don't actually have motivation. What we're doing when we anthropomorphize them is we are fooling ourselves into thinking they are a man-made reproduction of us without the meat flavored skin suit. That's not what's happening. But some of us are convinced that it is, or that it's near enough that it doesn't matter.

Is that why you love saying touch grass so much? Because it's your own personal style and not because you think it's a popular thing to say?

Or is it because you learned the fucking concept and not because it's been expressed too commonly in your "training data"? Honestly, it just sounds like you've heard too many people use that insult successfully and now you can't help but probabilistically express it after each comment lol.

Maybe stop parroting other people and projecting that onto me and maybe you'd sound more convincing.

From a programming pov, a definition of AI could be an algorithm or construct that can solve problems or perform tasks without the programmer specifically solving that problem or programming the steps of the task but rather building something that can figure it out on its own.

Though a lot of game AIs don't fit that description.