Skip to content

We need to stop pretending AI is intelligent

Technology
331 148 4.7k
  • So you trust your slm more than your fellow humans?

    Ya of course I do. Humans are the most unreliable slick disgusting diseased morally inept living organisms on the planet.

  • Anyone pretending AI has intelligence is a fucking idiot.

    You could say they're AS (Actual Stupidity)

  • Humans are absolutely more special than organic thinking machines. I'll go a step further and say all living creatures are more special than that.

    Show your proof, then. I've already said what I need to say about this topic.

    If humans are simply thought processes or our productive output then once you have a machine capable of thinking similarly (btw chatbots aren't that and likely never will be) then you can feel free to dispose of humanity.

    We have no idea how humans think, yet you're so confident that LLMs don't and never will be similar? Are you the Techbro now, because you're speaking so confidently on something that I don't think can be proven at this moment. I typically associate that with Techbros trying to sell their products. Also, why are you talking about disposing humanity? Your insecurity level is really concerning.

    Understanding how the human brain works is a wonderful thing that will let us unlock better treatment for mental health issues. Being able to understand them fully means we should also be able to replicate them to a certain extent. None of this involves disposing humans.

    It's a nice precursor to damning humanity to die so that you can have your robot army take over the world.

    This is just more of you projecting your insecurity onto me and accusing me of doing things you fear. All I've said was that humans thoughts are also probabilistic based on the little we know of them. The fact that your mind wander so far off into thoughts about me justifying a robot army takeover of the world is just you letting your fear run wild into the realm of conspiracy theory. Take a deep breathe and maybe take your own advice and go touch some grass.

    All I’ve said was that humans thoughts are also probabilistic based on the little we know of them.

    Much of the universe can be modeled as probabilities. So what? I can model a lot of things as different things. That does not mean that the model is the thing itself. Scientists are still doing what scientists do: being skeptical and making and testing hypotheses. It was difficult to prove definitively that smoking causes cancer yet you're willing to hop to "human thought is just an advanced chatbot" on scant evidence.

    This is just more of you projecting your insecurity onto me and accusing me of doing things you fear.

    No, it's again a case of you buying the bullshit arguments of tech bros. Even if we had a machine capable of replicating human thought, humans are more than walking brain stems.

    You want proof of that? Take a look at yourself. Are you a floating brain stem or being with limbs?

    At even the most reductive and tech bro-ish, healthy humans are self-fueling, self-healing, autonomous, communicating, feeling, seeing, laughing, dancing, creative organic robots with GI built-in.

    Even if a person one day creates a robot with all or most of these capabilities and worthy of considering having rights, we still won't be the organic version of that robot. We'll still be human.

    I think you're beyond having to touch grass. You need to take a fucking humanities course.

  • You could say they're AS (Actual Stupidity)

    Autonomous Systems that are Actually Stupid lol

  • My thing is that I don’t think most humans are much more than this. We too regurgitate what we have absorbed in the past. Our brains are not hard logic engines but “best guess” boxes and they base those guesses on past experience and probability of success. We make choices before we are aware of them and then apply rationalizations after the fact to back them up - is that true “reasoning?”

    It’s similar to the debate about self driving cars. Are they perfectly safe? No, but have you seen human drivers???

    Human brains are much more complex than a mirroring script xD The amount of neurons in your brain, AI and supercomputers only have a fraction of that. But you're right, for you its not much different than AI probably

  • Human brains are much more complex than a mirroring script xD The amount of neurons in your brain, AI and supercomputers only have a fraction of that. But you're right, for you its not much different than AI probably

    The human brain contains roughly 86 billion neurons, while ChatGPT, a large language model, has 175 billion parameters (often referred to as "artificial neurons" in the context of neural networks). While ChatGPT has more "neurons" in this sense, it's important to note that these are not the same as biological neurons, and the comparison is not straightforward.

    86 billion neurons in the human brain isn't that much compared to some of the larger 1.7 trillion neuron neural networks though.

  • My thing is that I don’t think most humans are much more than this. We too regurgitate what we have absorbed in the past. Our brains are not hard logic engines but “best guess” boxes and they base those guesses on past experience and probability of success. We make choices before we are aware of them and then apply rationalizations after the fact to back them up - is that true “reasoning?”

    It’s similar to the debate about self driving cars. Are they perfectly safe? No, but have you seen human drivers???

    Self Driving is only safer than people in absolutely pristine road conditions with no inclement weather and no construction. As soon as anything disrupts "normal" road conditions, self driving becomes significantly more dangerous than a human driving.

  • The human brain contains roughly 86 billion neurons, while ChatGPT, a large language model, has 175 billion parameters (often referred to as "artificial neurons" in the context of neural networks). While ChatGPT has more "neurons" in this sense, it's important to note that these are not the same as biological neurons, and the comparison is not straightforward.

    86 billion neurons in the human brain isn't that much compared to some of the larger 1.7 trillion neuron neural networks though.

    Keep thinking the human brain is as stupid as AI hahaaha

  • The human brain contains roughly 86 billion neurons, while ChatGPT, a large language model, has 175 billion parameters (often referred to as "artificial neurons" in the context of neural networks). While ChatGPT has more "neurons" in this sense, it's important to note that these are not the same as biological neurons, and the comparison is not straightforward.

    86 billion neurons in the human brain isn't that much compared to some of the larger 1.7 trillion neuron neural networks though.

    It's when you start including structures within cells that the complexity moves beyond anything we're currently capable of computing.

  • Keep thinking the human brain is as stupid as AI hahaaha

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

  • Anyone pretending AI has intelligence is a fucking idiot.

    AI is not actual intelligence. However, it can produce results better than a significant number of professionally employed people...

    I am reminded of when word processors came out and "administrative assistant" dwindled as a role in mid-level professional organizations, most people - even increasingly medical doctors these days - do their own typing. The whole "typing pool" concept has pretty well dried up.

  • I know it doesn't mean it's not dangerous, but this article made me feel better.

    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.

  • My thing is that I don’t think most humans are much more than this. We too regurgitate what we have absorbed in the past. Our brains are not hard logic engines but “best guess” boxes and they base those guesses on past experience and probability of success. We make choices before we are aware of them and then apply rationalizations after the fact to back them up - is that true “reasoning?”

    It’s similar to the debate about self driving cars. Are they perfectly safe? No, but have you seen human drivers???

    If an IQ of 100 is average, I'd rate AI at 80 and down for most tasks (and of course it's more complex than that, but as a starting point...)

    So, if you're dealing with a filing clerk with a functional IQ of 75 in their role - AI might be a better experience for you.

    Some of the crap that has been published on the internet in the past 20 years comes to an IQ level below 70 IMO - not saying I want more AI because it's better, just that - relatively speaking - AI is better than some of the pay-for-clickbait garbage that came before it.

  • Self Driving is only safer than people in absolutely pristine road conditions with no inclement weather and no construction. As soon as anything disrupts "normal" road conditions, self driving becomes significantly more dangerous than a human driving.

    Human drivers are only safe when they're not distracted, emotionally disturbed, intoxicated, and physically challenged (vision, muscle control, etc.) 1% of the population has epilepsy, and a large number of them are in denial or simply don't realize that they have periodic seizures - until they wake up after their crash.

    So, yeah, AI isn't perfect either - and it's not as good as an "ideal" human driver, but at what point will AI be better than a typical/average human driver? Not today, I'd say, but soon...

  • The human brain contains roughly 86 billion neurons, while ChatGPT, a large language model, has 175 billion parameters (often referred to as "artificial neurons" in the context of neural networks). While ChatGPT has more "neurons" in this sense, it's important to note that these are not the same as biological neurons, and the comparison is not straightforward.

    86 billion neurons in the human brain isn't that much compared to some of the larger 1.7 trillion neuron neural networks though.

    But, are these 1.7 trillion neuron networks available to drive YOUR car? Or are they time-shared among thousands or millions of users?

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

    Nah, I went to public high school - I got to see "the average" citizen who is now voting. While it is distressing that my ex-classmates now seem to control the White House, Congress and Supreme Court, what they're doing with it is not surprising at all - they've been talking this shit since the 1980s.

  • 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.

    Our minds work on a fundamentally different principle then Turing machines.

    Is that an advantage, or a disadvantage? I'm sure the answer depends on the setting.

  • All I’ve said was that humans thoughts are also probabilistic based on the little we know of them.

    Much of the universe can be modeled as probabilities. So what? I can model a lot of things as different things. That does not mean that the model is the thing itself. Scientists are still doing what scientists do: being skeptical and making and testing hypotheses. It was difficult to prove definitively that smoking causes cancer yet you're willing to hop to "human thought is just an advanced chatbot" on scant evidence.

    This is just more of you projecting your insecurity onto me and accusing me of doing things you fear.

    No, it's again a case of you buying the bullshit arguments of tech bros. Even if we had a machine capable of replicating human thought, humans are more than walking brain stems.

    You want proof of that? Take a look at yourself. Are you a floating brain stem or being with limbs?

    At even the most reductive and tech bro-ish, healthy humans are self-fueling, self-healing, autonomous, communicating, feeling, seeing, laughing, dancing, creative organic robots with GI built-in.

    Even if a person one day creates a robot with all or most of these capabilities and worthy of considering having rights, we still won't be the organic version of that robot. We'll still be human.

    I think you're beyond having to touch grass. You need to take a fucking humanities course.

    you're willing to hop to "human thought is just an advanced chatbot" on scant evidence.

    Not what I said, my point is that humans are organic probabilistic thinking machine and LLMs are just an imitation of that. And your assertion that an LLM is never ever gonna be similar to how the brain works is based on what evidence, again?

    You want proof of that? Take a look at yourself. Are you a floating brain stem or being with limbs?

    At even the most reductive and tech bro-ish, healthy humans are self-fueling, self-healing, autonomous, communicating, feeling, seeing, laughing, dancing, creative organic robots with GI built-in.

    Even if a person one day creates a robot with all or most of these capabilities and worthy of considering having rights, we still won't be the organic version of that robot. We'll still be human.

    What the hell are you even rambling about? Its like you completely ignored my previous comment, since you're still going on about robots.

    Bro, don't hallucinate an argument I never made, please. I'm only discussing about how the human mind works, yet here you are arguing about human limbs and what it means to be human?

    I'm not interested in arguing against someone who's more interested with inventing ghosts to argue with instead of looking at what I actually said.

    And again, go take your own advice and maybe go to therapy or something.

  • 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.

    Actually it's a very very brief summary of some philosophical arguments that happened between the 1950s and the 1980s. If you're interested in the topic, you could go read about them.

  • Tell that to the crows and chimps that know how to solve novel problems.

    Thats the point

  • 207 Stimmen
    11 Beiträge
    44 Aufrufe
    I
    Worked in voyager for me. There’s an X in the top right to close out the pop up. If you can’t see it maybe just poke around in that area, it might go away
  • Uber Eats is adding AI to menus, food photos, and reviews

    Technology technology
    38
    1
    152 Stimmen
    38 Beiträge
    110 Aufrufe
    sharkattak@kbin.melroy.orgS
    ...you just have to trust that those reviews won't get "adjusted" in the process...
  • 336 Stimmen
    19 Beiträge
    197 Aufrufe
    R
    What I'm speaking about is that it should be impossible to do some things. If it's possible, they will be done, and there's nothing you can do about it. To solve the problem of twiddled social media (and moderation used to assert dominance) we need a decentralized system of 90s Web reimagined, and Fediverse doesn't deliver it - if Facebook and Reddit are feudal states, then Fediverse is a confederation of smaller feudal entities. A post, a person, a community, a reaction and a change (by moderator or by the user) should be global entities (with global identifiers, so that the object by id of #0000001a2b3c4d6e7f890 would be the same object today or 10 years later on every server storing it) replicated over a network of servers similarly to Usenet (and to an IRC network, but in an IRC network servers are trusted, so it's not a good example for a global system). Really bad posts (or those by persons with history of posting such) should be banned on server level by everyone. The rest should be moderated by moderator reactions\changes of certain type. Ideally, for pooling of resources and resilience, servers would be separated by types into storage nodes (I think the name says it, FTP servers can do the job, but no need to be limited by it), index nodes (scraping many storage nodes, giving out results in structured format fit for any user representation, say, as a sequence of posts in one community, or like a list of communities found by tag, or ... , and possibly being connected into one DHT for Kademlia-like search, since no single index node will have everything), and (like in torrents?) tracker nodes for these and for identities, I think torrent-like announce-retrieve service is enough - to return a list of storage nodes storing, say, a specified partition (subspace of identifiers of objects, to make looking for something at least possibly efficient), or return a list of index nodes, or return a bunch of certificates and keys for an identity (should be somehow cryptographically connected to the global identifier of a person). So when a storage node comes online, it announces itself to a bunch of such trackers, similarly with index nodes, similarly with a user. One can also have a NOSTR-like service for real-time notifications by users. This way you'd have a global untrusted pooled infrastructure, allowing to replace many platforms. With common data, identities, services. Objects in storage and index services can be, say, in a format including a set of tags and then the body. So a specific application needing to show only data related to it would just search on index services and display only objects with tags of, say, "holo_ns:talk.bullshit.starwars" and "holo_t:post", like a sequence of posts with ability to comment, or maybe it would search objects with tags "holo_name:My 1999-like Star Wars holopage" and "holo_t:page" and display the links like search results in Google, and then clicking on that you'd see something presented like a webpage, except links would lead to global identifiers (or tag expressions interpreted by the particular application, who knows). (An index service may return, say, an array of objects, each with identifier, tags, list of locations on storage nodes where it's found or even bittorrent magnet links, and a free description possibly ; then the user application can unify responses of a few such services to avoid repetitions, maybe sort them, represent them as needed, so on.) The user applications for that common infrastructure can be different at the same time. Some like Facebook, some like ICQ, some like a web browser, some like a newsreader. (Star Wars is not a random reference, my whole habit of imagining tech stuff is from trying to imagine a science fiction world of the future, so yeah, this may seem like passive dreaming and it is.)
  • 465 Stimmen
    24 Beiträge
    382 Aufrufe
    J
    Paging Ray Bradbury......... https://www.libraryofshortstories.com/storiespdf/the-veldt.pdf
  • 112 Stimmen
    2 Beiträge
    35 Aufrufe
    W
    ...the ruling stopped short of ordering the government to recover past messages that may already have been lost. How would somebody be meant to comply with an order to recover a message that has been deleted? Or is that the point? Can't comply and you're in contempt of court.
  • I'm making a guide to Pocket alternatives: getoffpocket.com

    Technology technology
    30
    159 Stimmen
    30 Beiträge
    322 Aufrufe
    B
    Update: https://lemmy.world/post/31554728
  • Google is Using AI to Censor Independent Websites

    Technology technology
    40
    1
    147 Stimmen
    40 Beiträge
    569 Aufrufe
    demonsword@lemmy.worldD
    You can go to communism Island if you want Despite all the propaganda, there is no place right now on the face of our planet that is under communism. bit [sic] I’d rather have capitalism, thank you Well, aren't you fortunate, you already have all the capitalism you want, anywhere you go. Choke on it.
  • 0 Stimmen
    1 Beiträge
    19 Aufrufe
    Niemand hat geantwortet