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

  • Personalized pricing can backfire on companies, says study

    Technology technology
    16
    136 Stimmen
    16 Beiträge
    33 Aufrufe
    whotookkarl@lemmy.dbzer0.comW
    Personalized pricing = price gouging. Yes, people get upset when they find out you ripped then off. price gouging verb Present participle of price gouge. noun The act of or an instance of charging services or pricing goods at unreasonably high prices. Pricing above the market price when no alternative retailer is available.
  • After BlackSuit is taken down, new ransomware group Chaos emerges

    Technology technology
    1
    1
    30 Stimmen
    1 Beiträge
    14 Aufrufe
    Niemand hat geantwortet
  • 560 Stimmen
    98 Beiträge
    576 Aufrufe
    M
    Ignorance of the law is not... Oh I don't know why I'm wasting my time.
  • 242 Stimmen
    30 Beiträge
    460 Aufrufe
    X
    They didn't ask what the comic was, they asked "but why not both?". It can be both unethical and a lesson
  • Using Clouds for too long might have made you incompetent

    Technology technology
    87
    166 Stimmen
    87 Beiträge
    2k Aufrufe
    M
    I was recruited as an R&D engineer by a company that was sales focused. It was pretty funny being recruited like a new sales hire: limo from the airport, etc. Limo driver didn't work direct for the company but she did a lot of work for them, it was an hour drive both ways to/from the "big" airport they used. She said most of the sales recruits she drove in were clueless kids, no idea how the world worked yet at all - gunning for a big commission job where 9/10 hires wash out within a year. At least after I arrived on-site I spent the day with my prospective new department, that was a pretty decent process. The one guy I didn't interview well with turned out to be the guy who had applied to the spot I was taking and had been passed over. As I was walking in on my first day he was just finishing moving his stuff out of the window-office desk he was giving up for me, into a cube. I can understand why he was a little prickly.
  • 18 Stimmen
    1 Beiträge
    18 Aufrufe
    Niemand hat geantwortet
  • AJWIN — A Revolução do Entretenimento Online em Suas Mãos

    Technology technology
    1
    1
    0 Stimmen
    1 Beiträge
    21 Aufrufe
    Niemand hat geantwortet
  • Why Japan's animation industry has embraced AI

    Technology technology
    12
    1
    1 Stimmen
    12 Beiträge
    130 Aufrufe
    R
    The genre itself has become neutered, too. A lot of anime series have the usual "anime elements" and a couple custom ideas. And similar style, too glossy for my taste. OK, what I think is old and boring libertarian stuff, I'll still spell it out. The reason people are having such problems is because groups and businesses are de facto legally enshrined in their fields, it's almost like feudal Europe's system of privileges and treaties. At some point I thought this is good, I hope no evil god decided to fulfill my wish. There's no movement, and a faction (like Disney with Star Wars) that buys a place (a brand) can make any garbage, and people will still try to find the depth in it and justify it (that complaint has been made about Star Wars prequels, but no, they are full of garbage AND have consistent arcs, goals and ideas, which is why they revitalized the Expanded Universe for almost a decade, despite Lucas-<companies> having sort of an internal social collapse in year 2005 right after Revenge of the Sith being premiered ; I love the prequels, despite all the pretense and cringe, but their verbal parts are almost fillers, their cinematographic language and matching music are flawless, the dialogue just disrupts it all while not adding much, - I think Lucas should have been more decisive, a bit like Tartakovsky with the Clone Wars cartoon, just more serious, because non-verbal doesn't equal stupid). OK, my thought wandered away. Why were the legal means they use to keep such positions created? To make the economy nicer to the majority, to writers, to actors, to producers. Do they still fulfill that role? When keeping monopolies, even producing garbage or, lately, AI slop, - no. Do we know a solution? Not yet, because pressing for deregulation means the opponent doing a judo movement and using that energy for deregulating the way everything becomes worse. Is that solution in minimizing and rebuilding the system? I believe still yes, nothing is perfect, so everything should be easy to quickly replace, because errors and mistakes plaguing future generations will inevitably continue to be made. The laws of the 60s were simple enough for that in most countries. The current laws are not. So the general direction to be taken is still libertarian. Is this text useful? Of course not. I just think that in the feudal Europe metaphor I'd want to be a Hussite or a Cossack or at worst a Venetian trader.