Skip to content

We need to stop pretending AI is intelligent

Technology
330 147 183
  • 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.

  • Secure Your Gmail Now As Google Warns Of Password Attacks

    Technology technology
    9
    1
    53 Stimmen
    9 Beiträge
    31 Aufrufe
    J
    I tried to but they wanted to force me to give them my phone number. Fuck them, they don't need it.
  • Rediscovering Human Purpose in the Age of AI

    Technology technology
    2
    1
    3 Stimmen
    2 Beiträge
    16 Aufrufe
    capuccino@lemmy.worldC
    well, it seems that the rich will stay rich, no matter what. It's incredible that people see AI as a religion now
  • Role of Email Deliverability Consulting in ROI

    Technology technology
    1
    2
    0 Stimmen
    1 Beiträge
    10 Aufrufe
    Niemand hat geantwortet
  • The U.S. Immigration and Customs

    Technology technology
    1
    0 Stimmen
    1 Beiträge
    6 Aufrufe
    Niemand hat geantwortet
  • 311 Stimmen
    37 Beiträge
    24 Aufrufe
    S
    Same, especially when searching technical or niche topics. Since there aren't a ton of results specific to the topic, mostly semi-related results will appear in the first page or two of a regular (non-Gemini) Google search, just due to the higher popularity of those webpages compared to the relevant webpages. Even the relevant webpages will have lots of non-relevant or semi-relevant information surrounding the answer I'm looking for. I don't know enough about it to be sure, but Gemini is probably just scraping a handful of websites on the first page, and since most of those are only semi-related, the resulting summary is a classic example of garbage in, garbage out. I also think there's probably something in the code that looks for information that is shared across multiple sources and prioritizing that over something that's only on one particular page (possibly the sole result with the information you need). Then, it phrases the summary as a direct answer to your query, misrepresenting the actual information on the pages they scraped. At least Gemini gives sources, I guess. The thing that gets on my nerves the most is how often I see people quote the summary as proof of something without checking the sources. It was bad before the rollout of Gemini, but at least back then Google was mostly scraping text and presenting it with little modification, along with a direct link to the webpage. Now, it's an LLM generating text phrased as a direct answer to a question (that was also AI-generated from your search query) using AI-summarized data points scraped from multiple webpages. It's obfuscating the source material further, but I also can't help but feel like it exposes a little of the behind-the-scenes fuckery Google has been doing for years before Gemini. How it bastardizes your query by interpreting it into a question, and then prioritizes homogeneous results that agree on the "answer" to your "question". For years they've been doing this to a certain extent, they just didn't share how they interpreted your query.
  • 119 Stimmen
    10 Beiträge
    32 Aufrufe
    S
    Active ISA would be a disaster. My fairly modern car is unable to reliably detect posted or implied speed limits. Sometimes it overshoots by more than double and sometimes it mandates more than 3/4 slower. The problem is the way it is and will have to be done is by means of optical detection. GPS speed measurement can also be surprisingly unreliable. Especially in underground settings like long pass-unders and tunnels. If the system would be based on something reliable like local wireless communications between speed limit postings it would be a different issue - would also come with a significant risc of abuse though. Also the passive ISA was the first thing I disabled. And I abide by posted speed limits.
  • 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.
  • Apple Eyes Move to AI Search, Ending Era Defined by Google

    Technology technology
    2
    10 Stimmen
    2 Beiträge
    15 Aufrufe
    ohshit604@sh.itjust.worksO
    It’s infuriating that Safari/Apple only allows me to choose from five different search engines. I self-host my own SearXNG instance and have to use a third-party extension to redirect my queries.