Skip to content

We need to stop pretending AI is intelligent

Technology
331 148 4.7k
  • 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

  • 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.

    However, there is a huge energy cost for that speed to process statistically the information to mimic intelligence. The human brain is consuming much less energy.
    Also, AI will be fine with well defined task where innovation isn't a requirement. As it is today, AI is incapable to innovate.

  • 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.

    you can give me a sandwige and ill do a better job than AI

  • 1k Stimmen
    82 Beiträge
    469 Aufrufe
    corkyskog@sh.itjust.worksC
    Then reduce amount off during sales and give people bonus credits whenever they buy something. Bonus credits can be used wherever... Or... They can create their own crypto coin and people can buy that with dollars. Visa and MasterCard don't stop people (although do charge a ridiculous fee) from buying crypto already, which can be used on all sorts of more nefarious dealings. We can get even more convoluted if we need to.
  • Uganda cracks down on Google over data protection breach

    Technology technology
    2
    1
    71 Stimmen
    2 Beiträge
    29 Aufrufe
    C
    Good, this bullshit has never made a compelling argument In its defence, Google argued that since it was not based in Uganda and had no physical presence in the country, it was not obliged to register with the PDPO, and the rules on cross-border transfers of personal data did not apply to it. However, the regulator rejected this argument, determining that Google is a local data controller since it collects data from users in Uganda and decides how that data is processed.
  • 149 Stimmen
    4 Beiträge
    64 Aufrufe
    T
    Very true. And the fine will be raised for next time, so you really dont want strike one.
  • 10 Stimmen
    5 Beiträge
    69 Aufrufe
    I
    So, China made their own copycat RoboCup competition?
  • New Orleans debates real-time facial recognition legislation

    Technology technology
    12
    1
    150 Stimmen
    12 Beiträge
    130 Aufrufe
    A
    [image: 62e40d75-1358-46a4-a7a5-1f08c6afe4dc.jpeg] Palantir had a contract with New Orleans starting around ~2012 to create their predictive policing tech that scans surveillance cameras for very vague details and still misidentifies people. It's very similar to Lavender, the tech they use to identify members of Hamas and attack with drones. This results in misidentified targets ~10% of the time, according to the IDF (likely it's a much higher misidentification rate than 10%). Palantir picked Louisiana over somewhere like San Francisco bc they knew it would be a lot easier to violate rights and privacy here and get away with it. Whatever they decide in New Orleans on Thursday during this Council meeting that nobody cares about, will likely be the first of its kind on the books legal basis to track civilians in the U.S. and allow the federal government to take control over that ability whenever they want. This could also set a precedent for use in other states. Guess who's running the entire country right now, and just gave high ranking army contracts to Palantir employees for "no reason" while they are also receiving a multimillion dollar federal contract to create an insane database on every American and giant data centers are being built all across the country.
  • 2 Stimmen
    1 Beiträge
    21 Aufrufe
    Niemand hat geantwortet
  • The world could experience a year above 2°C of warming by 2029

    Technology technology
    17
    1
    200 Stimmen
    17 Beiträge
    190 Aufrufe
    sattarip@lemmy.blahaj.zoneS
    Thank you for the clarification.
  • 460 Stimmen
    89 Beiträge
    884 Aufrufe
    M
    It dissolves into salt water. Except it doesn't dissolve, this is not the term they should be using, you can't just dry out the water and get the plastic back. It breaks down into other things. I'm pretty sure an ocean full of dissolved plastic would be a way worse ecological disaster than the current microplastic problem... I've seen like 3-4 articles about this now and they all use the term dissolve and it's pissing me off.