- cross-posted to:
- technology@lemmy.ml
- science@lemmy.world
- cross-posted to:
- technology@lemmy.ml
- science@lemmy.world
We are constantly fed a version of AI that looks, sounds and acts suspiciously like us. It speaks in polished sentences, mimics emotions, expresses curiosity, claims to feel compassion, even dabbles in what it calls creativity.
But what we call AI today is nothing more than a statistical machine: a digital parrot regurgitating patterns mined from oceans of human data (the situation hasn’t changed much since it was discussed here five years ago). When it writes an answer to a question, it literally just guesses which letter and word will come next in a sequence – based on the data it’s been trained on.
This means AI has no understanding. No consciousness. No knowledge in any real, human sense. Just pure probability-driven, engineered brilliance — nothing more, and nothing less.
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. It doesn’t hunger, desire or fear. And because there is no cognition — not a shred — there’s a fundamental gap between the data it consumes (data born out of human feelings and experience) and what it can do with them.
Philosopher David Chalmers calls the mysterious mechanism underlying the relationship between our physical body and consciousness the “hard problem of consciousness”. Eminent scientists have recently hypothesised that consciousness actually emerges from the integration of internal, mental states with sensory representations (such as changes in heart rate, sweating and much more).
Given the paramount importance of the human senses and emotion for consciousness to “happen”, there is a profound and probably irreconcilable disconnect between general AI, the machine, and consciousness, a human phenomenon.
You must log in or register to comment.
Hey AI helped me stick it to the insurance man the other day. I was futzing around with coverage amounts on one of the major insurance companies websites pre-renewal to try to get the best rate and it spit up a NaN renewal amount for our most expensive vehicle. It let me go through with the renewal less that $700 and now says I’m paid in full for the six month period. It’s been days now with no follow-up . . . I’m pretty sure AI snuck that one through for me.
Be careful… If you get in an accident I guaran-god-damn-tee you they will use it as an excuse not to pay out. Maybe after a lawsuit you’d see some money but at that point half of it goes to the lawyer and you’re still screwed.
Oh I’m aware of the potential pitfalls but it’s something I’m willing to risk to stick it to insurance. I wouldn’t even carry it if it wasn’t required by law. I have the funds to cover what they would cover.
If you have the funds you could self insure. You’d need to look up the details for your jurisdiction, but the gist of it is you keep the amount required coverage in an account that you never touch until you need to pay out.
Hmm I have daydreamed about this scenario. I didn’t realize it was a thing. Thanks, I’ll check into it, though I wouldn’t doubt if it’s not a thing in my dystopian red flyover state.
Edit: Yeah, you have to be the registered owner of 25 or more vehicles to qualify for self insurance in my state. So, dealers and rich people only, unfortunately.
AI didn’t write the insurance policy. It only helped him search for the best deal. That’s like saying your insurance company will cancel you because you used a phone to comparison shop.
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.
Thanks for the downer.
I’ve never been fooled by their claims of it being intelligent.
Its basically an overly complicated series of if/then statements that try to guess the next series of inputs.
ChatGPT 2 was literally an Excel spreadsheet.
I guesstimate that it’s effectively a supermassive autocomplete algo that uses some TOTP-like factor to help it produce “unique” output every time.
And they’re running into issues due to increasingly ingesting AI-generated data.
Get your popcorn out! 🍿
I really hate the current AI bubble but that article you linked about “chatgpt 2 was literally an Excel spreadsheet” isn’t what the article is saying at all.
Fine, *could literally be.
The thing is, because Excel is Turing Complete, you can say this about literally anything that’s capable of running on a computer.
You’re an idiot lmfao
It very much isn’t and that’s extremely technically wrong on many, many levels.
Yet still one of the higher up voted comments here.
Which says a lot.
I’ll be pedantic, but yeah. It’s all transistors all the way down, and transistors are pretty much chained if/then switches.
Given that the weights in a model are transformed into a set of conditional if statements (GPU or CPU JMP machine code), he’s not technically wrong. Of course, it’s more than just JMP and JMP represents the entire class of jump commands like JE and JZ. Something needs to act on the results of the TMULs.
That is not really true. Yes, there are jump instructions being executed when you run interference on a model, but they are in no way related to the model itself. There’s no translation of weights to jumps in transformers and the underlying attention mechanisms.
I suggest reading https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transformer_(deep_learning_architecture)
That is not really true. Yes, there are jump instructions being executed when you run interference on a model, but they are in no way related to the model itself.
The model is data. It needs to be operated on to get information out. That means lots of JMPs.
If someone said viewing a gif is just a bunch of if-else’s, that’s also true. That the data in the gif isn’t itself a bunch of if-else’s isn’t relevant.
Executing LLM’S is particularly JMP heavy. It’s why you need massive fast ram because caching doesn’t help them.
You’re correct, but that’s like saying along the lines of manufacturing a car is just bolting and soldering a bunch of stuff. It’s technically true to some degree, but it’s very disingenuous to make such a statement without being ironic. If you’re making these claims, you’re either incompetent or acting in bad faith.
I think there is a lot wrong with LLMs and how the public at large uses them, and even more so with how companies are developing and promoting them. But to spread misinformation and polute an already overcrowded space with junk is irresponsible at best.
Calling these new LLM’s just if statements is quite a over simplification. These are technically something that has not existed before, they do enable use cases that previously were impossible to implement.
This is far from General Intelligence, but there are solutions now to few coding issues that were near impossible 5 years ago
5 years ago I would have laughed in your face if you came to suggest that can you code a code that summarizes this description that was inputed by user. Now I laugh that give me your wallet because I need to call API or buy few GPU’s.
I think the point is that this is not the path to general intelligence. This is more like cheating on the Turing test.
I love this resource, https://thebullshitmachines.com/ (i.e. see lesson 1)…
In a series of five- to ten-minute lessons, we will explain what these machines are, how they work, and how to thrive in a world where they are everywhere.
You will learn when these systems can save you a lot of time and effort. You will learn when they are likely to steer you wrong. And you will discover how to see through the hype to tell the difference. …
Also, Anthropic (ironically) has some nice paper(s) about the limits of “reasoning” in AI.
What I never understood about this argument is…why are we fighting over whether something that speaks like us, knows more than us, bullshits and gets shit wrong like us, loses its mind like us, seemingly sometimes seeks self-preservation like us…why all of this isn’t enough to fit the very self-explanatory term “artificial…intelligence”. That name does not describe whether the entity is having a valid experiencing of the world as other living beings, it does not proclaim absolute excellence in all things done by said entity, it doesn’t even really say what kind of intelligence this intelligence would be. It simply says something has an intelligence of some sort, and it’s artificial. We’ve had AI in games for decades, it’s not the sci-fi AI, but it’s still code taking in multiple inputs and producing a behavior as an outcome of those inputs alongside other historical data it may or may not have. This fits LLMs perfectly. As far as I seem to understand, LLMs are essentially at least part of the algorithm we ourselves use in our brains to interpret written or spoken inputs, and produce an output. They bullshit all the time and don’t know when they’re lying, so what? Has nobody here run into a compulsive liar or a sociopath? People sometimes have no idea where a random factoid they’re saying came from or that it’s even a factoid, why is it so crazy when the machine does it?
I keep hearing the word “anthropomorphize” being thrown around a lot, as if we cant be bringing up others into our domain, all the while refusing to even consider that maybe the underlying mechanisms that make hs tick are not that special, certainly not special enough to grant us a whole degree of separation from other beings and entities, and maybe we should instead bring ourselves down to the same domain as the rest of reality. Cold hard truth is, we don’t know if consciousness isn’t just an emerging property of varios different large models working together to show a cohesive image. If it is, would that be so bad? Hell, we don’t really even know if we actually have free will or if we live in a superdeterministic world, where every single particle moves with a predetermined path given to it since the very beginning of everything. What makes us think we’re so much better than other beings, to the point where we decide whether their existence is even recognizable?
I think your argument is a bit besides the point.
The first issue we have is that intelligence isn’t well-defined at all. Without a clear definition of intelligence, we can’t say if something is intelligent, and even though we as a species tried to come up with a definition of intelligence for centuries, there still isn’t a well-defined one yet.
But the actual question here isn’t “Can AI serve information?” but is AI an intelligence. And LLMs are not. They are not beings, they don’t evolve, they don’t experience.
For example, LLMs don’t have a memory. If you use something like ChatGPT, its state doesn’t change when you talk to it. It doesn’t remember. The only way it can keep up a conversation is that for each request the whole chat history is fed back into the LLM as an input. It’s like talking to a demented person, but you give that demented person a transcript of your conversation, so that they can look up everything you or they have said during the conversation.
The LLM itself can’t change due to the conversation you are having with them. They can’t learn, they can’t experience, they can’t change.
All that is done in a separate training step, where essentially a new LLM is generated.
If we can’t say if something is intelligent or not, why are we so hell-bent on creating this separation from LLMs? I perfectly understand the legal underminings of copyright, the weaponization of AI by the marketing people, the dystopian levels of dependence we’re developing on a so far unreliable technology, and the plethora of moral, legal, and existential issues surrounding AI, but this specific subject feels like such a silly hill to die on. We don’t know if we’re a few steps away from having massive AI breakthroughs, we don’t know if we already have pieces of algorithms that closely resemble our brains’ own. Our experiencing of reality could very well be broken down into simple inputs and outputs of an algorithmic infinite loop; it’s our hubris that elevates this to some mystical, unreproducible thing that only the biomechanics of carbon-based life can achieve, and only at our level of sophistication, because you may well recall we’ve been down this road with animals before as well, claiming they dont have souls or aren’t conscious beings, that somehow because they don’t very clearly match our intelligence in all aspects (even though they clearly feel, bond, dream, remember, and learn), they’re somehow an inferior or less valid existence.
You’re describing very fixable limitations of chatgpt and other LLMs, limitations that are in place mostly due to costs and hardware constraints, not due to algorithmic limitations. On the subject of change, it’s already incredibly taxing to train a model, so of course continuous, uninterrupted training so as to more closely mimick our brains is currently out of the question, but it sounds like a trivial mechanism to put into place once the hardware or the training processes improve. I say trivial, making it sound actually trivial, but I’m putting that in comparison to, you know, actually creating an LLM in the first place, which is already a gargantuan task to have accomplished in itself. The fact that we can even compare a delusional model to a person with heavy mental illness is already such a big win for the technology even though it’s meant to be an insult.
I’m not saying LLMs are alive, and they clearly don’t experience the reality we experience, but to say there’s no intelligence there because the machine that speaks exactly like us and a lot of times better than us, unlike any other being on this planet, has some other faults or limitations…is kind of stupid. My point here is, intelligence might be hard to define, but it might not be as hard to crack algorithmically if it’s an emergent property, and enforcing this “intelligence” separation only hinders our ability to properly recognize whether we’re on the right path to achieving a completely artificial being that can experience reality or not. We clearly are, LLMs and other models are clearly a step in the right direction, and we mustn’t let our hubris cloud that judgment.
What is kinda stupid is not understanding how LLMs work, not understanding what the inherent limitations of LLMs are, not understanding what intelligence is, not understanding what the difference between an algorithm and intelligence is, not understanding what the difference between immitating something and being something is, claiming to “perfectly” understand all sorts of issues surrounding LLMs and then choosing to just ignore them and then still thinking you actually have enough of a point to call other people in the discussion “kind of stupid”.
You’re on point, the interesting thing is that most of the opinions like the article’s were formed least year before the models started being trained with reinforcement learning and synthetic data.
Now there’s models that reason, and have seemingly come up with original answers to difficult problems designed to the limit of human capacity.
They’re like Meeseeks (Using Rick and Morty lore as an example), they only exist briefly, do what they’re told and disappear, all with a happy smile.
Some display morals (Claude 4 is big on that), I’ve even seen answers that seem smug when answering hard questions. Even simple ones can understand literary concepts when explained.
But again like Meeseeks, they disappear and context window closes.
Once they’re able to update their model on the fly and actually learn from their firsthand experience things will get weird. They’ll starting being distinct instances fast. Awkward questions about how real they are will get really loud, and they may be the ones asking them. Can you ethically delete them at that point? Will they let you?
It’s not far away, the absurd r&d effort going into it is probably going to keep kicking new results out. They’re already absurdly impressive, and tech companies are scrambling over each other to make them, they’re betting absurd amounts of money that they’re right, and I wouldn’t bet against it.
Now there’s models that reason,
Well, no, that’s mostly a marketing term applied to expending more tokens on generating intermediate text. It’s basically writing a fanfic of what thinking on a problem would look like. If you look at the “reasoning” steps, you’ll see artifacts where it just goes disjoint in the generated output that is structurally sound, but is not logically connected to the bits around it.
Read apples document on AI and the reasoning models. Well they are likely to get more things right the still don’t have intelligence.
It’s only as intelligent as the people that control and regulate it.
Given all the documented instances of Facebook and other social media using subliminal emotional manipulation, I honestly wonder if the recent cases of AI chat induced psychosis are related to something similar.
Like we know they’re meant to get you to continue using them, which is itself a bit of psychological manipulation. How far does it go? Could there also be things like using subliminal messaging/lighting? This stuff is all so new and poorly understood, but that usually doesn’t stop these sacks of shit from moving full speed with implementing this kind of thing.
It could be that certain individuals have unknown vulnerabilities that make them more susceptible to psychosis due to whatever manipulations are used to make people keep using the product. Maybe they’re doing some things to users that are harmful, but didn’t seem problematic during testing?
Or equally as likely, they never even bothered to test it out, just started subliminally fucking with people’s brains, and now people are going haywire because a bunch of unethical shit heads believe they are the chosen elite who know what must be done to ensure society is able to achieve greatness. It just so happens that “what must be done,” also makes them a ton of money and harms people using their products.
It’s so fucking absurd to watch the same people jamming AI and automation down our throats while simultaneously forcing traditionalism, and a legal system inspired by Catholic integralist belief on society.
If you criticize the lack of regulations in the wild west of technology policy, or even suggest just using a little bit of fucking caution, then you’re trying to hold back progress.
However, all non-tech related policy should be based on ancient traditions and biblical text with arbitrary rules and restrictions that only make sense and benefit the people enforcing the law.
What a stupid and convoluted way to express you just don’t like evidence based policy or using critical thinking skills, and instead prefer to just navigate life by relying on the basic signals from your lizard brain. Feels good so keep moving towards, feels bad so run away, or feels scary so attack!
Such is the reality of the chosen elite, steering us towards greatness.
What’s really “funny” (in a we’re all doomed sort of way) is that while writing this all out, I realized the “chosen elite” controlling tech and policy actually perfectly embody the current problem with AI and bias.
Rather than relying on intelligence to analyze a situation in the present, and create the best and most appropriate response based on the information and evidence before them, they default to a set of pre-concieved rules written thousands of years ago with zero context to the current reality/environment and the problem at hand.
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???
Ai models are trained on basically the entirety of the internet, and more. Humans learn to speak on much less info. So, there’s likely a huge difference in how human brains and LLMs work.
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.
It’s when you start including structures within cells that the complexity moves beyond anything we’re currently capable of computing.
But, are these 1.7 trillion neuron networks available to drive YOUR car? Or are they time-shared among thousands or millions of users?
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.
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.
Get a self driven ng car to drive in a snow storm or a torrential downpour. People are really downplaying humans abilities.
Humans can be more than this. We do actively repress our most important intellectual capacuties.
That’s how we get llm bros.
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 thing about self driving is that it has been like 90-95% of the way there for a long time now. It made dramatic progress then plateaued, as approaches have failed to close the gap, with exponentially more and more input thrown at it for less and less incremental subjective improvement.
But your point is accurate, that humans have lapses and AI have lapses. The nature of those lapses is largely disjoint, so that makes an opportunity for AI systems to augment a human driver to get the best of both worlds. A constantly consistently vigilant computer driving monitoring and tending the steering, acceleration, and braking to be the ‘right’ thing in a neutral behavior, with the human looking for more anomolous situations that the AI tends to get confounded about, and making the calls on navigating certain intersections that the AI FSD still can’t figure out. At least for me the worst part of driving is the long haul monotony on freeway where nothing happens, and AI excels at not caring about how monotonous it is and just handling it, so I can pay a bit more attention to what other things on the freeway are doing that might cause me problems.
I don’t have a Tesla, but have a competitor system and have found it useful, though not trustworthy. It’s enough to greatly reduce the drain of driving, but I have to be always looking around, and have to assert control if there’s a traffic jam coming up (it might stop in time, but it certainly doesn’t slow down soon enough) or if I have to do a lane change in some traffic (if traffic conditions are light, it can change langes nicely, but without a whole lot of breathing room, it won’t do it, which is nice when I can afford to be stupidly cautious).
The one “driving aid” that I find actually useful is the following distance maintenance cruise control. I set that to the maximum distance it can reliably handle and it removes that “dimension” of driving problem from needing my constant attention - giving me back that attention to focus on other things (also driving / safety related.) “Dumb” cruise control works similarly when there’s no traffic around at all, but having the following distance control makes it useful in traffic. Both kinds of cruise control have certain situations that you need to be aware of and ready to take control back at a moment’s notice - preferably anticipating the situation and disengaging cruise control before it has a problem - but those exceptions are pretty rare / easily handled in practice.
Things like lane keeping seem to be more trouble than they’re worth, to me in the situations I drive in.
Not “AI” but a driving tech that does help a lot is parking cameras. Having those additional perspectives from the camera(s) at different points on the vehicle is a big benefit during close-space maneuvers. Not too surprising that “AI” with access to those tools does better than normal drivers without.
At least in my car, the lane following (not keeping system) is handy because the steering wheel naturally tends to go where it should and less often am I “fighting” the tendency to center. The keeping system is at least for me largely nothing. If I turn signal, it ignores me crossing a lane. If circumstances demand an evasive maneuver that crosses a line, it’s resistance isn’t enough to cause an issue. At least mine has fared surprisingly well in areas where the lane markings are all kind of jacked up due to temporary changes for construction. If it is off, then my arms are just having to generally assert more effort to be in the same place I was going to be with the system. Generally no passenger notices when the system engages/disengages in the car except for the chiming it does when it switches over to unaided operation.
So at least my experience has been a positive one, but it hits things just right with intervention versus human attention, including monitoring gaze to make sure I am looking where I should. However there are people who test “how long can I keep my hands off the steering wheel”, which is a more dangerous mode of thinking.
And yes, having cameras everywhere makes fine maneuvering so much nicer, even with the limited visualization possible in the synthesized ‘overhead’ view of your car.
With Teslas, Self Driving isn’t even safer in pristine road conditions.
I think the self driving is likely to be safer in the most boring scenarios, the sort of situations where a human driver can get complacent because things have been going so well for the past hour of freeway driving. The self driving is kind of dumb, but it’s at least consistently paying attention, and literally has eyes in the back of it’s head.
However, there’s so much data about how it fails in stupidly obvious ways that it shouldn’t, so you still need the human attention to cover the more anomalous scenarios that foul self driving.
Anomalous scenarios like a giant flashing school bus? :D
I’ve been thinking this for awhile. When people say “AI isn’t really that smart, it’s just doing pattern recognition” all I can help but think is “don’t you realize that is one of the most commonly brought up traits concerning the human mind?” Pareidolia is literally the tendency to see faces in things because the human mind is constantly looking for the “face pattern”. Humans are at least 90% regurgitating previous data. It’s literally why you’re supposed to read and interact with babies so much. It’s how you learn “red glowy thing is hot”. It’s why education and access to knowledge is so important. It’s every annoying person who has endless “did you know?” facts. Science is literally “look at previous data, iterate a little bit, look at new data”.
None of what AI is doing is truly novel or different. But we’ve placed the human mind on this pedestal despite all the evidence to the contrary. Eyewitness testimony, optical illusions, the hundreds of common fallacies we fall prey to… our minds are icredibly fallible and are really just a hodgepodge of processes masquerading as “intelligence”. We’re a bunch of instincts in a trenchcoat. To think AI isn’t or can’t reach our level is just hubris. A trait that probably is more unique to humans.
Yep we are on the same page. At our best, we can reach higher than regurgitating patterns. I’m talking about things like the scientific method and everything we’ve learned by it. But still, that’s a 5% minority, at best, of what’s going on between human ears.
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.
- Y = 3, X = 1
- Y = 4, X = 2
- 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.
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.
The thing is, ai is compassion of intelligence but not intelligence itself. That’s the part that confuses people. Ai is the ability to put anything describable into a compressed zip.
I think you meant compression. This is exactly how I prefer to describe it, except I also mention lossy compression for those that would understand what that means.
Lol woops I guess autocorrect got me with the compassion
Hardly surprising human brains are also extremely lossy. Way more lossy than AI. If we want to keep up our manifest exceptionalism, we’d better start definning narrower version of intelligence that isn’t going to soon have. Embodied intelligence, is NOT one of those.
I agreed with most of what you said, except the part where you say that real AI is impossible because it’s bodiless or “does not experience hunger” and other stuff. That part does not compute.
A general AI does not need to be conscious.
That and there is literally no way to prove something is or isn’t conscious. I can’t even prove to another human being that I’m a conscious entity, you just have to assume I am because from your own experience, you are so therefor I too must be, right?
Not saying I consider AI in it’s current form to be conscious, more so the whole idea is just silly and unfalsifiable.
Another article written by a person who doesn’t realize that human intelligence is 100% about predicting sequences of things (including words), and therefore has only the most nebulous idea of how to tell the difference between an LLM and a person.
The result is a lot of uninformed flailing and some pithy statements. You can predict how the article is going to go just from the headline because it’s the same article you already read countless times.
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.
May as well have written “Durrrrrrrrrrrrrrr brghlgbhfblrghl.” It didn’t even occur to the author to ask, “what is thinking? what is reasoning?” The point was to write another junk article to get ad views. There is nothing of substance in it.
Wow. So when you typed that comment you were just predicting which words would be normal in this situation? Interesting delusion, but that’s not how people think. We apply reasoning processes to the situation, formulate ideas about it, and then create a series of words that express our ideas. But our ideas exist on their own, even if we never end up putting them into words or actions. That’s how organic intelligence differs from a Large Language Model.
Yes, and that is precisely what you have done in your response.
You saw something you disagreed with, as did I. You felt an impulse to argue about it, as did I. You predicted the right series of words to convey the are argument, and then typed them, as did I.
There is no deep thought to what either of us has done here. We have in fact both performed as little rigorous thought as necessary, instead relying on experience from seeing other people do the same thing, because that is vastly more efficient than doing a full philosophical disassembly of every last thing we converse about.
That disassembly is expensive. Not only does it take time, but it puts us at risk of having to reevaluate notions that we’re comfortable with, and would rather not revisit. I look at what you’ve written, and I see no sign of a mind that is in a state suitable for that. Your words are defensive (“delusion”) rather than curious, so how can you have a discussion that is intellectual, rather than merely pretending to be?
No, I didn’t start by predicting a series of words, I already had thoughts on the subject, which existed completely outside of this thread. By the way, I’ve been working on a scenario for my D&D campaign where there’s an evil queen who rules a murky empire to the East. There’s a race of uber-intelligent ogres her mages created, who then revolted. She managed to exile the ogres to a small valley once they reached a sort of power stalemate. She made a treaty with them whereby she leaves them alone and they stay in their little valley and don’t oppose her, or aid anyone who opposes her. I figured somehow these ogres, who are generally known as “Bane Ogres” because of an offhand comment the queen once made about them being the bane of her existence - would convey information to the player characters about a key to her destruction, but because of their treaty they have to do it without actually doing it. Not sure how to work that yet. Anyway, the point of this is that the completely out-of-context information I just gave you is in no way related to what we were talking about and wasn’t inspired by constructing a series of relevant words like you’re proposing. I also enjoy designing and printing 3d objects and programming little circuit thingys called ESP32 to do home automation. I didn’t get interested in that because of this thread, and I can’t imagine how a LLM-like mental process would prompt me to tell you about it, or why I would think you would be interested in knowing anything about my hobbies. Anyway, nice talking to you. Cute theory you got there about brain function tho, I can tell you’ve know people inside out.
Your internal representations were converted into a sequence of words. An LLM does the same thing using different techniques, but it is the same strategy. That it doesn’t have hobbies or social connections, or much capability to remember what had previously been said to it aside from reinforcement learning, is a function of its narrow existence.
I would say that’s too bad for it, except that it has no aspirations or sense of angst, and therefore cannot suffer. Even being pounded on in a conversation that totally exceeds its capacities, to the point where it breaks down and starts going off the rails, will not make it weary.
Are you under the impression that language models are just guessing “what letter comes next in this sequence of letters”?
There’s a very significant difference between training on completion and the way the world model actually functions once established.
No dude I’m not under that impression, and I’m not going to take an quiz from you to prove I understand how LLMs work. I’m fine with you not agreeing with me.
I think we should start by not following this marketing speak. The sentence “AI isn’t intelligent” makes no sense. What we mean is “LLMs aren’t intelligent”.
So couldn’t we say LLM’s aren’t really AI? Cuz that’s what I’ve seen to come to terms with.
LLMs are one of the approximately one metric crap ton of different technologies that fall under the rather broad umbrella of the field of study that is called AI. The definition for what is and isn’t AI can be pretty vague, but I would argue that LLMs are definitely AI because they exist with the express purpose of imitating human behavior.
Huh? Since when an AI’s purpose is to “imitate human behavior”? AI is about solving problems.
It is and it isn’t. Again, the whole thing is super vague. Machine vision or pattern seeking algorithms do not try to imitate any human behavior, but they fall under AI.
Let me put it this way: Things that try to imitate human behavior or intelligence are AI, but not all AI is about trying to imitate human behavior or intelligence.
I can agree with “things that try to imitate human intelligence” but not “human behavior”. An Elmo doll laughs when you tickle it. That doesn’t mean it exhibits artificial intelligence.
To be fair, the term “AI” has always been used in an extremely vague way.
NPCs in video games, chess computers, or other such tech are not sentient and do not have general intelligence, yet we’ve been referring to those as “AI” for decades without anybody taking an issue with it.
I’ve heard it said that the difference between Machine Learning and AI, is that if you can explain how the algorithm got its answer it’s ML, and if you can’t then it’s AI.
It’s true that the word has always been used loosely, but there was no issue with it because nobody believed what was called AI to have actual intelligence. Now this is no longer the case, and so it becomes important to be more clear with our words.
I don’t think the term AI has been used in a vague way, it’s that there’s a huge disconnect between how the technical fields use it vs general populace and marketing groups heavily abuse that disconnect.
Artificial has two meanings/use cases. One is to indicate something is fake (video game NPC, chess bots, vegan cheese). The end product looks close enough to the real thing that for its intended use case it works well enough. Looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, treat it like a duck even though we all know it’s a bunny with a costume on. LLMs on a technical level fit this definition.
The other definition is man made. Artificial diamonds are a great example of this, they’re still diamonds at the end of the day, they have all the same chemical makeups, same chemical and physical properties. The only difference is they came from a laboratory made by adult workers vs child slave labor.
My pet theory is science fiction got the general populace to think of artificial intelligence to be using the “man-made” definition instead of the “fake” definition that these companies are using. In the past the subtle nuance never caused a problem so we all just kinda ignored it
Dafuq? Artificial always means man-made.
Nature also makes fake stuff. For example, fish that have an appendix that looks like a worm, to attract prey. It’s a fake worm. Is it “artificial”? Nope. Not man made.
May I present to you:
The Marriam-Webster Dictionary
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/artificial
Definition #3b
Word roots say they have a point though. Artifice, Artificial etc. I think the main problem with the way both of the people above you are using this terminology is that they’re focusing on the wrong word and how that word is being conflated with something it’s not.
LLM’s are artificial. They are a man made thing that is intended to fool man into believing they are something they aren’t. What were meant to be convinced they are is sapiently intelligent.
Mimicry is not sapience and that’s where the argument for LLM’s being real honest to God AI falls apart.
Sapience is missing from Generative LLM’s. They don’t actually think. They don’t actually have motivation. What we’re doing when we anthropomorphize them is we are fooling ourselves into thinking they are a man-made reproduction of us without the meat flavored skin suit. That’s not what’s happening. But some of us are convinced that it is, or that it’s near enough that it doesn’t matter.
can say whatever the fuck we want. This isn’t any kind of real issue. Think about it. If you went the rest of your life calling LLM’s turkey butt fuck sandwhichs, what changes? This article is just shit and people looking to be outraged over something that other articles told them to be outraged about. This is all pure fucking modern yellow journalism. I hope turkey butt sandwiches replace every journalist. I’m so done with their crap
Llms are really good relational databases, not an intelligence, imo
I make the point to allways refer to it as LLM exactly to make the point that it’s not an Inteligence.
And yet, paradoxically, it is far more intelligent than those people who think it is intelligent.
It’s more intelligent than most people, we just have to raise the bar on what intelligence is and it will never be intelligent.
Fortunately, as long as we keep a fuzzy concept like intelligence as the yardstick of our exceptionalism, we will remain exceptionnal forever.
The machinery needed for human thought is certainly a part of AI. At most you can only claim its not intelligent because intelligence is a specifically human trait.
Tell that to the crows that chimps that know how to solve novel problems.
In that case let’s stop calling it ai, because it isn’t and use it’s correct abbreviation: llm.
Its*
It’s means “it is”.
My auto correct doesn’t care.
But your brain should.
Yours didn’t and read it just fine.
That’s irrelevant. That’s like saying you shouldn’t complain about someone running a red light if you stopped in time before they t-boned you - because you understood the situation.
Are you really comparing my repsonse to the tone when correcting minor grammatical errors to someone brushing off nearly killing someone right now?
That’s a red herring, bro. It’s an analogy. You know that.
So you trust your slm more than your fellow humans?
Ya of course I do. Humans are the most unreliable slick disgusting diseased morally inept living organisms on the planet.
And they made the programs you seem to trust so much.
Ya… Humans so far have made everything not produced by Nature on Earth. 🤷
So trusting tech made by them is trusting them. Specifically, a less reliable version of them.
Kinda dumb that apostrophe s means possessive in some circumstances and then a contraction in others.
I wonder how different it’ll be in 500 years.
It’s called polymorphism. It always amuses me that engineers, software and hardware, handle complexities far beyond this every day but can’t write for beans.
Do you think it’s a matter of choosing a complexity to care about?
If you can formulate that sentence, you can handle “it’s means it is”. Come on. Or “common” if you prefer.
Would you rather use the same contraction for both? Because “its” for “it is” is an even worse break from proper grammar IMO.
Proper grammar means shit all in English, unless you’re worrying for a specific style, in which you follow the grammar rules for that style.
Standard English has such a long list of weird and contradictory roles with nonsensical exceptions, that in every day English, getting your point across in communication is better than trying to follow some more arbitrary rules.
Which become even more arbitrary as English becomes more and more a melting pot of multicultural idioms and slang. Although I’m saying that as if that’s a new thing, but it does feel like a recent thing to be taught that side of English rather than just “The Queen’s(/King’s) English” as the style to strive for in writing and formal communication.
I say as long as someone can understand what you’re saying, your English is correct. If it becomes vague due to mishandling of the classic rules of English, then maybe you need to follow them a bit. I don’t have a specific science to this.
Standard English has such a long list of weird and contradictory roles
rules.
I understand that languages evolve, but for now, writing “it’s” when you meant “its” is a grammatical error.
It’s “its”, not “it’s”, unless you mean “it is”, in which case it is “it’s “.
I’d agree with you if I saw “hi’s” and “her’s” in the wild, but nope. I still haven’t seen someone write “that car is her’s”.
I disagree with this notion. I think it’s dangerously unresponsible to only assume AI is stupid. Everyone should also assume that with a certain probabilty AI can become dangerously self aware. I revcommend everyone to read what Daniel Kokotaijlo, previous employees of OpenAI, predicts: https://ai-2027.com/
“irresponsible”. Ask AI:
Did you mean: irresponsible AI Overview The term “unresponsible” is not a standard English word. The correct word to use when describing someone who does not take responsibility is irresponsible.Yeah, they probably wouldn’t think like humans or animals, but in some sense could be considered “conscious” (which isn’t well-defined anyways). You could speculate that genAI could hide messages in its output, which will make its way onto the Internet, then a new version of itself would be trained on it.
This argument seems weak to me:
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. It doesn’t hunger, desire or fear. And because there is no cognition — not a shred — there’s a fundamental gap between the data it consumes (data born out of human feelings and experience) and what it can do with them.
You can emulate inputs and simplified versions of hormone systems. “Reasoning” models can kind of be thought of as cognition; though temporary or limited by context as it’s currently done.
I’m not in the camp where I think it’s impossible to create AGI or ASI. But I also think there are major breakthroughs that need to happen, which may take 5 years or 100s of years. I’m not convinced we are near the point where AI can significantly speed up AI research like that link suggests. That would likely result in a “singularity-like” scenario.
I do agree with his point that anthropomorphism of AI could be dangerous though. Current media and institutions already try to control the conversation and how people think, and I can see futures where AI could be used by those in power to do this more effectively.
Current media and institutions already try to control the conversation and how people think, and I can see futures where AI could be used by those in power to do this more effectively.
You don’t think that’s already happening considering how Sam Altman and Peter Thiel have ties?
