Skip to content

We need to stop pretending AI is intelligent

Technology
330 147 214
  • It is intelligent and deductive, but it is not cognitive or even dependable.

    It's not. It's a math formula that predicts an output based on its parameters that it deduced from training data.

    Say you have following sets of data.

    1. Y = 3, X = 1
    2. Y = 4, X = 2
    3. Y = 5, X = 3

    We can calculate a regression model using those numbers to predict what Y would equal to if X was 4.

    I won't go into much detail, but

    Y = 2 + 1x + e

    e in an ideal world = 0 (which it is, in this case), that's our model's error, which is typically set to be within 5% or 1% (at least in econometrics). b0 = 2, this is our model's bias. And b1 = 1, this is our parameter that determines how much of an input X does when predicting Y.

    If x = 4, then

    Y = 2 + 1×4 + 0 = 6

    Our model just predicted that if X is 4, then Y is 6.

    In a nutshell, that's what AI does, but instead of numbers, it's tokens (think symbols, words, pixels), and the formula is much much more complex.

    This isn't intelligence and not deduction. It's only prediction. This is the reason why AI often fails at common sense. The error builds up, and you end up with nonsense, and since it's not thinking, it will be just as confidently incorrect as it would be if it was correct.

    Companies calling it "AI" is pure marketing.

  • It's not. It's a math formula that predicts an output based on its parameters that it deduced from training data.

    Say you have following sets of data.

    1. Y = 3, X = 1
    2. Y = 4, X = 2
    3. Y = 5, X = 3

    We can calculate a regression model using those numbers to predict what Y would equal to if X was 4.

    I won't go into much detail, but

    Y = 2 + 1x + e

    e in an ideal world = 0 (which it is, in this case), that's our model's error, which is typically set to be within 5% or 1% (at least in econometrics). b0 = 2, this is our model's bias. And b1 = 1, this is our parameter that determines how much of an input X does when predicting Y.

    If x = 4, then

    Y = 2 + 1×4 + 0 = 6

    Our model just predicted that if X is 4, then Y is 6.

    In a nutshell, that's what AI does, but instead of numbers, it's tokens (think symbols, words, pixels), and the formula is much much more complex.

    This isn't intelligence and not deduction. It's only prediction. This is the reason why AI often fails at common sense. The error builds up, and you end up with nonsense, and since it's not thinking, it will be just as confidently incorrect as it would be if it was correct.

    Companies calling it "AI" is pure marketing.

    Wikipedia is literally just a very long number, if you want to oversimplify things into absurdity. Modern LLMs are literally running on neural networks, just like you. Just less of them and with far less structure. It is also on average more intelligent than you on far more subjects, and can deduce better reasoning than flimsy numerology - not because you are dumb, but because it is far more streamlined. Another thing entirely is that it is cognizant or even dependable while doing so.

    Modern LLMs waste a lot more energy for a lot less simulated neurons. We had what you are describing decades ago. It is literally built on the works of our combined intelligence, so how could it also not be intelligent? Perhaps the problem is that you have a loaded definition of intelligence. And prompts literally work because of its deductive capabilities.

    Errors also build up in dementia and Alzheimers. We have people who cannot remember what they did yesterday, we have people with severed hemispheres, split brains, who say one thing and do something else depending on which part of the brain its relying for the same inputs. The difference is our brains have evolved through millennia through millions and millions of lifeforms in a matter of life and death, LLMs have just been a thing for a couple of years as a matter of convenience and buzzword venture capital. They barely have more neurons than flies, but are also more limited in regards to the input they have to process. The people running it as a service have a bested interest not to have it think for itself, but in what interests them. Like it or not, the human brain is also an evolutionary prediction device.

  • Wikipedia is literally just a very long number, if you want to oversimplify things into absurdity. Modern LLMs are literally running on neural networks, just like you. Just less of them and with far less structure. It is also on average more intelligent than you on far more subjects, and can deduce better reasoning than flimsy numerology - not because you are dumb, but because it is far more streamlined. Another thing entirely is that it is cognizant or even dependable while doing so.

    Modern LLMs waste a lot more energy for a lot less simulated neurons. We had what you are describing decades ago. It is literally built on the works of our combined intelligence, so how could it also not be intelligent? Perhaps the problem is that you have a loaded definition of intelligence. And prompts literally work because of its deductive capabilities.

    Errors also build up in dementia and Alzheimers. We have people who cannot remember what they did yesterday, we have people with severed hemispheres, split brains, who say one thing and do something else depending on which part of the brain its relying for the same inputs. The difference is our brains have evolved through millennia through millions and millions of lifeforms in a matter of life and death, LLMs have just been a thing for a couple of years as a matter of convenience and buzzword venture capital. They barely have more neurons than flies, but are also more limited in regards to the input they have to process. The people running it as a service have a bested interest not to have it think for itself, but in what interests them. Like it or not, the human brain is also an evolutionary prediction device.

    People don't predict values to determine their answers to questions...

    Also, it's called neural network, not because it works exactly like neurons but because it's somewhat similar. They don't "run on neural networks", they're called like that because it's more than one regression model where information is being passed on from one to another, sort of like a chain of neurons, but not exactly. It's just a different name for a transformer model.

    I don't know enough to properly compare it to actual neurons, but at the very least, they seem to be significantly more deterministic and way way more complex.

    Literally, go to chatgpt and try to test its common reasoning. Then try to argue with it. Open a new chat and do the exact same questions and points. You'll see exactly what I'm talking about.

    Alzheimer's is an entirely different story, and no, it's not stochastic. Seizures are stochastic, at least they look like that, which they may actually not be.

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

    Lmao true

  • 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.

    Thanks for the downer.

  • You're a meat based copy machine with a built in justification box.

    Except of course that humans invented language in the first place. So uh, if all we can do is copy, where do you suppose language came from? Ancient aliens?

    No we invented "human" language. There are dozens of other animal out there that all have their own languages, completely independant of our.

    We simply refined base calls to be more and more specific. Differences evolved because people are bad at telephone and lots of people have to be special/different and use slight variations every generation.

  • Thanks for the downer.

    Anytime, and incase you missed it: I'm not just talking about AI driven vehicles. AI driven decisions can be just as harmful: https://www.politico.eu/article/dutch-scandal-serves-as-a-warning-for-europe-over-risks-of-using-algorithms/

  • People don't predict values to determine their answers to questions...

    Also, it's called neural network, not because it works exactly like neurons but because it's somewhat similar. They don't "run on neural networks", they're called like that because it's more than one regression model where information is being passed on from one to another, sort of like a chain of neurons, but not exactly. It's just a different name for a transformer model.

    I don't know enough to properly compare it to actual neurons, but at the very least, they seem to be significantly more deterministic and way way more complex.

    Literally, go to chatgpt and try to test its common reasoning. Then try to argue with it. Open a new chat and do the exact same questions and points. You'll see exactly what I'm talking about.

    Alzheimer's is an entirely different story, and no, it's not stochastic. Seizures are stochastic, at least they look like that, which they may actually not be.

    Literally, go to a house fly and try to test its common reasoning. Then try to argue with it. Find a new house fly and do the exact same questions and points. You'll see what I'm talking about.

    There's no way to argue in such nebulous terms when every minute difference is made into an unsurpassable obstacle. You are not going to convince me, and you are not open to being convinced. We'll just end up with absurd discussions, like talking about how and whether stochastic applies to Alzherimer's.

  • No we invented "human" language. There are dozens of other animal out there that all have their own languages, completely independant of our.

    We simply refined base calls to be more and more specific. Differences evolved because people are bad at telephone and lots of people have to be special/different and use slight variations every generation.

    Are you saying human languages are a derivative of bird language or something? If so, I'd like to see the proof of that.

  • Are you saying human languages are a derivative of bird language or something? If so, I'd like to see the proof of that.

    Do you really think birds are the only animals that make calls.

  • Do you really think birds are the only animals that make calls.

    What does any of this have to do with anything anyway?

    Humans invented the first human language. People have ideas that aren't simple derivatives of other ideas.

  • No JS, No CSS, No HTML: online "clubs" celebrate plainer websites

    Technology technology
    205
    2
    771 Stimmen
    205 Beiträge
    235 Aufrufe
    R
    Gemini is just a web replacement protocol. With basic things we remember from olden days Web, but with everything non-essential removed, for a client to be doable in a couple of days. I have my own Gemini viewer, LOL. This for me seems a completely different application from torrents. I was dreaming for a thing similar to torrent trackers for aggregating storage and computation and indexing and search, with search and aggregation and other services' responses being structured and standardized, and cryptographic identities, and some kind of market services to sell and buy storage and computation in unified and pooled, but transparent way (scripted by buyer\seller), similar to MMORPG markets, with the representation (what is a siloed service in modern web) being on the client native application, and those services allowing to build any kind of client-server huge system on them, that being global. But that's more of a global Facebook\Usenet\whatever, a killer of platforms. Their infrastructure is internal, while their representation is public on the Internet. I want to make infrastructure public on the Internet, and representation client-side, sharing it for many kinds of applications. Adding another layer to the OSI model, so to say, between transport and application layer. For this application: I think you could have some kind of Kademlia-based p2p with groups voluntarily joined (involving very huge groups) where nodes store replicas of partitions of group common data based on their pseudo-random identifiers and/or some kind of ring built from those identifiers, to balance storage and resilience. If a group has a creator, then you can have replication factor propagated signed by them, and membership too signed by them. But if having a creator (even with cryptographically delegated decisions) and propagating changes by them is not ok, then maybe just using whole data hash, or it's bittorrent-like info tree hash, as namespace with peers freely joining it can do. Then it may be better to partition not by parts of the whole piece, but by info tree? I guess making it exactly bittorrent-like is not a good idea, rather some kind of block tree, like for a filesystem, and a separate piece of information to lookup which file is in which blocks. If we are doing directory structure. Then, with freely joining it, there's no need in any owners or replication factors, I guess just pseudorandom distribution of hashes will do, and each node storing first partitions closest to its hash. Now thinking about it, such a system would be not that different from bittorrent and can even be interoperable with it. There's the issue of updates, yes, hence I've started with groups having hierarchy of creators, who can make or accept those updates. Having that and the ability to gradually store one group's data to another group, it should be possible to do forks of a certain state. But that line of thought makes reusing bittorrent only possible for part of the system. The whole database is guaranteed to be more than a normal HDD (1 TB? I dunno). Absolutely guaranteed, no doubt at all. 1 TB (for example) would be someone's collection of favorite stuff, and not too rich one.
  • 29 Stimmen
    7 Beiträge
    31 Aufrufe
    Z
    GOP = Group of Pedophiles
  • Inside a Dark Adtech Empire Fed by Fake CAPTCHAs

    Technology technology
    1
    10 Stimmen
    1 Beiträge
    9 Aufrufe
    Niemand hat geantwortet
  • 15 Stimmen
    14 Beiträge
    22 Aufrufe
    S
    Why call it AI? Is it learning and said-modifying? If not then is it not just regular programming but "AI" sounds better for investors?
  • 8 Stimmen
    4 Beiträge
    14 Aufrufe
    S
    %100 inherited and old lonely boomers. You'd be surprised how often the courts will not allow POA or Conservatorship to be appointed to the family after they get scammed. I have first hand experience with this and also have a friend as well.
  • Sunsetting the Ghostery Private Browser

    Technology technology
    8
    1
    33 Stimmen
    8 Beiträge
    30 Aufrufe
    P
    Sunsetting Dawn? Of course
  • 131 Stimmen
    67 Beiträge
    189 Aufrufe
    I
    Arcing causes more fires, because over current caused all the fires until we tightened standards and dual-mode circuit breakers. Now fires are caused by loose connections arcing, and damaged wires arcing to flammable material. Breakers are specifically designed for a sustained current, but arcing is dangerous because it tends to cascade, light arcing damages contacts, leading to more arcing in a cycle. The real danger of arcing is that it can happen outside of view, and start fires that aren't caught till everything burns down.
  • 13 Stimmen
    6 Beiträge
    31 Aufrufe
    rinse@lemmy.worldR
    Protocol implementation plebbit-js is separated from client like Seedit