Skip to content

We need to stop pretending AI is intelligent

Technology
330 147 169
  • 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.

  • Tracing the Honda Acty’s Evolution: Generation by Generation

    Technology technology
    1
    1
    0 Stimmen
    1 Beiträge
    0 Aufrufe
    Niemand hat geantwortet
  • 51 Stimmen
    8 Beiträge
    32 Aufrufe
    B
    But do you also sometimes leave out AI for steps the AI often does for you, like the conceptualisation or the implementation? Would it be possible for you to do these steps as efficiently as before the use of AI? Would you be able to spot the mistakes the AI makes in these steps, even months or years along those lines? The main issue I have with AI being used in tasks is that it deprives you from using logic by applying it to real life scenarios, the thing we excel at. It would be better to use AI in the opposite direction you are currently use it as: develop methods to view the works critically. After all, if there is one thing a lot of people are bad at, it's thorough critical thinking. We just suck at knowing of all edge cases and how we test for them. Let the AI come up with unit tests, let it be the one that questions your work, in order to get a better perspective on it.
  • Fatphobia Is Fueled by AI-Created Images, Study Finds

    Technology technology
    14
    1
    15 Stimmen
    14 Beiträge
    53 Aufrufe
    K
    I pretty much agree. The only thing I would add is that it's not our place to tell others to lose weight or to point out their weight; people already know they are overweight and that it's unhealthy. We shouldn't be policing other people's bodies. It's also possible to be overweight and have body positivity; being overweight doesn't equate to being unattractive.
  • Remote MCP servers for VSCode

    Technology technology
    1
    1
    0 Stimmen
    1 Beiträge
    10 Aufrufe
    Niemand hat geantwortet
  • iFixit says the Switch 2 is even harder to repair than the original

    Technology technology
    126
    1
    698 Stimmen
    126 Beiträge
    156 Aufrufe
    Y
    My understanding is that if they've lasted at least a month and haven't died on you, you probably got a "good" batch and what you have now will be what it stays as for the most part, but a fair number of gulikits just sort of crap out at the 1-2 mo mark. So heads up on that.
  • ICE Taps into Nationwide AI-Enabled Camera Network, Data Shows

    Technology technology
    80
    1
    486 Stimmen
    80 Beiträge
    70 Aufrufe
    Z
    Their problem with China is the supposed atheism, and that they're not christian fundamentalists.
  • Microsoft pulls MS365 Business Premium from nonprofits

    Technology technology
    37
    1
    48 Stimmen
    37 Beiträge
    98 Aufrufe
    S
    That's the thing, I wish we could just switch all enterprises to Linux, but Microsoft developed a huge ecosystem that really does have good features. Unless something comparable comes up in the Linux world, I don't see Europe becoming independent of Microsoft any time soon
  • Microsoft Teams will soon block screen capture during meetings

    Technology technology
    43
    305 Stimmen
    43 Beiträge
    147 Aufrufe
    D
    No but, you can just close it.