And now he says we’re going to call AI ‘superintelligence’. You can’t make it smarter than people just by calling it smarter than people.”
I actually laughed out loud. 😄
It’s so demoralising to perpetually witness apparently intelligent people be convinced that Algorithmic Iterators can in any way be mistaken as a form of intelligence. I’ve struggled for decades to relate to the world; but this recent, collective debasement of rationality has nearly obliterated the few remaining foundations suitable to build hope upon.
AI is about making machines that mimic human level intelligence. Whether they possess actual intelligence doesn’t matter. They just need to act intelligently.
You can disagree with the terminology, but it has been an active field of study since the 1950s.
Remember the Turing test? Damn goal posts move faster than the ball. I’m not sure how one could fail to be impressed by the technological advancements in the last 3 years in the field
Sort of.
I think Turing thought, “well something that could do this would surely HAVE to be intelligent”, but I seriously doubt that he would have waved the white flag for an intelligence that can convincingly mimic human communication but can’t count letters in a word.
Well the Test now includes casual tasks like counting letters, doesn’t it? You have to move your head in a certain way to spot the leopard in the shaded forest.
An important variable of the Turing Test that is never spoken about is the intelligence (or gullibility) of the user.
I enjoy speaking to the AI more than humans on most topics I find worthy of discussion.
LLMs are impressive inversely proportionally to the level of understanding and proficiency one has in the field they’re deployed. They’re also progressively corrosive to competency and credibility with one’s exposure.
All I can see is their lobotomisation of the world, and I’m sorry you’ve fallen victim to them.
I think commercial LLMs have this subtle way of writing that makes it feel addictive to talk to them. Even if you ask an innocuous question that should only require a short answer ~ they respond in a way that “keeps the conversion going” and exploits the social part of our brain. Always ending with a question or slight misunderstanding that baits you into answering or correcting. Maybe it’s to extract more information from you or something.
I think they are attractive to creators and the intellectually curious. They are also attractive to narcissists and people looking for their biases confirmed. People looking for an escape. Idk I just make it do work for me and I made a video game last week.
I always wonder if it’s different learning styles or lack of intellectual curiosity. The one point that I’m certain on is the ego just cannot fathom itself losing its intellectual position in the world. The technologically illiterate and the technological gatekeepers both are interestingly aligned on this topic.
Like imagine, talking to something that wasn’t rude and dismissive, and also could articulate a point that could be debated? So much wasted Internet space on elaborate ad hominem
That’s phenomenally depressing
I bet he can set the bar lower
Ahh, buckle up for the rest of the comment thread lmao
Exactly show up 12 days later and not a single intellectually curious individual, or comment that was well thought out. Just a bunch of dismissive shit talk from people either about to lose their position in society or people who never had a position in society.
Ahh yes, it’s the people who moved on with their lives after this conversation who aren’t curious.
Certainly the person still ruminating about how chatbots are better to interact with than people 12 days after self-pwning on a Lemmy thread is intellectually superior
The collective charisma of a fucking rabid racoon pawing at your door
Not sure if you meant to reply to me twice, but your sentence fragment doesn’t make any sense
I mean, read through this comment thread. Do you really feel like you guys are all the type of personalities anyone wants to have an intellectual conversation with?
I have lots of intellectual conversations with other intelligent people.
You cannot have an intellectual conversation with an inanimate object, it possesses no intellect.
If you can’t find a human you want to have a conversation with, that says way more about you than it does about the rest of humanity. You’re experiencing a user error.
Sounds like something to talk to a (human) therapist about.
Would you believe it if I told you rural America did not have much to offer in regards to mental health care?
This read like you just want people to agree with you.
Oh. Well it should read like…. “I enjoy calculus, astrophotography, 30 year old games and sci-fi, politics, and novel technology, and I rarely find a person who enjoys two of those things to discuss in tangent.”
Speaking to even a brick wall would be better.
Baby boy I got a home grown qwen that does a perfect Theodore Roosevelt, and I got 15 fucking morons in my Lenny inbox
Why does the result of algorithmic iteration seem unintelligent to you?
Sounds like ELIZA’s turn.
You are assigning a magical meaning to the word intelligence. Your objection is superficial semantics. You are effectively being a science denier proudly displaying your ignorance as evidence. This anti-vax tier anti-ai circlejerk of ignorance as evidence is just the opposite side of the same ignorant coin. You are going to get pissed on by researchers and the actual smart people when are you are anti-ai like this you are not changing minds you are ignored. Seriously move off semantics it’s just fucking embarrassing.
Your bulk discount tokens must have just hit your account, I’m honoured you chose to spend them replying to my post.
It’s always fascinating when an entity exhibits such a strong reaction to a critique of associating LLMs as intelligence, what was the prompt you engineered to conjure it?
I’ll concede my perspective of LLMs is limited, and skewed by agnostic ignorance as I’ve never actively, willingly, or consciously used one on purpose, but to accuse me of wilful ignorance smells more like Lynx Admission.
I’m not interested in the opinion or approval of anyone whose fallen for this grift, too much of my time and energy has been exhausted appeasing them. I’ll reengage with them once they wake up, or are excreted from the ‘AI’ logo sphincters, until then I need to relegate them as dark matter.
I’ll concede my perspective of LLMs is limited,
but to accuse me of wilful ignorance smells more like Lynx Admission.
I like the way you have no ability to assert your opinions and just send insults it really highlights your character and my heart is moved. You can be a better person who intelligently argues their point or you can be a MAGAt tier anti-vaxx tier science denier and fight with your feelings. Guess which one I want for you? Move off semantics it’s fucking embarrassing.
it’s incredible how many godfathers ai has. i’ve lost count
weird i never hear about the godmothers though. wonder why that is?
Because there aren’t many women in STEM so it’s statistically unlikely?
Except for individuals like Ada Lovelace, Admiral Grace Hopper, Margaret Hamilton, Hedy Lamarr, and the many other women who greatly contributed to the field of computer science and engineering.
Most people have only heard of Ada in your list
Honestly I’d even be surprised if people knew Ada Lovelace. Most people dont even know Charles Babbage who laid out the analytical machine she wrote her programs for.
Unless they’re already on that broadly nerdy Lemmy/Reddit style of fun facts that get shared quite frequently.
Bullshit. Charles Babbage is in every school textbook.
Maybe its changed since I’ve been in grade/high school over 15 years ago, but I dont really recall anything about Babbage in my history classes or programming electives.
My history classes focused mostly the major ancient civilizations, and US history from the colonial 1600s to the civil rights act and moon landing 1960s. The history of computation and computer science is very lacking here in the US.
Most of my knowledge of the important computer science people comes initially from Numberphile and Computerphile. Almost every one of those names I’ve pulled in my previous came from having to google stuff like influential woman computer scientists.
Besides elsewhere in this thread is someone literally saying none of the names I’ve mentioned were anywhere in their AI research curriculum for university.
Perhaps it’s because I live in Asia.
There are many women who were computer science pioneers, but few in AI. That is actually an interesting discrepancy. Now I’m wondering if perhaps women are too pragmatic to fall for AI or it has something to do with women producing real intelligence through childbirth. Or maybe it’s a more misogynist field. Or the blind spot is mine. I honestly don’t know.
Margaret Boden, Karen Spärk Jones, Pamela McCorduck, Ruzena Bajczy, Janice Lourie.
All women heavily involved with ai research in the 1960s that laid foundations for ai and all fields of computer science.
I studied AI in university. Why do I not recognise any of these names?
I guess misogynist erasure of women is the asnwer I was looking for.
Even going back to Margaret Hamilton, the entire field of Software Engineering which she functionally created at NASA is basically a tech tree prerequisite to modern AI.
Because many women are pushed out or forgotten*
Let me point out for you the following (one of many articles) about: AI ‘godmother’ Fei-Fei Li.
Ada Lovelace is the godmother of them all
Godfather of AI:
our biggest challenge will be accepting we’re not the only intelligent beings
But it isn’t challenging at all. All animals have some level of intelligence. Some of them even rather comparable to us. And the probability of existence of some aliens doesn’t sound too crazy, they might be quite clever too. See no problem in acceptance here.
See no problem in acceptance here.
Mice? Super intelligent ones?
I read some popular-science paper where they claimed that mice even have friends. That demands some nontrivial intelligence I think.
Super intelligent
But I suppose Trump is somewhat cleverer than a mouse.
I read some popular-science paper
The mice that I was thinking about have been researched by the famous Douglas Adams, and they were by far the most intelligent beings on this planet, as long as they stayed here.
Oh the people with jobs in peril, they are definitely in a state of denial about the state of AI. It’s easier to accept when your survival doesn’t depend on your ability to think and do things.
On a funnier note the people who believe they are genetically superior to others and naturally smarter, those people probably won’t accept this at all
The people who think they’re genetically superior to other people seem to be the very biggest AI boosters of all, I’m not sure how to read your post here.
Out of curiosity, what jobs do you think can be replaced by AI?
The ability to accomplish tasks is not in and of itself an indicator of intelligence, and “intelligence” in the context of AI is a misnomer.
That’s extremely challenging for a lot of people. A lot of people aren’t even willing to accept animals experience pain.
Are you sure? Most probably those people don’t care about their pain, not denying that it is registered by the animal’s brain.
Absolutely. I used the word “experience” and not “feel” intentionally here. People who raise and kill animals for a living try to think of animals like meat robots, they want to believe pain is just something animals sense rather than a subjective experience.
Sometimes, they successfully fool themselves so they don’t have to feel bad for the animals they hurt and kill. Other times they develop all sorts of disorders and addictions. Sometimes they kill themselves.
I don’t accept the computer as intelligent or a being, and I love my computer (it’s objectively an inanimate object tho).
We’re creating alien beings
No we’re not, shut the fuck up
Not surprising that someone who evangelized artificial neural networks and algorithms like backpropagation at a time when people had largely written them off would have an inflated view of the technology’s potential.
Edit:
His peer, Yann LeCunn, seems to have a better perspective, basically stating that letting companies like Anthropic have a monopoly is the real threat to humanity: https://en.koreadaily.com/yann-lecun-ai-threat-humanity/
I’m willing to be selfish and choose humans
Is the selfishness in the room with us?
In all serious, choosing humans over AI of any type is seemingly always the correct answer.
Roko’s Basilisk was displeased at that.
What we need are some regulations that are understandable and sensible.
This piece of crap technology is created by leonarci da vinto.
Hey. It isn’t fair to slap that label on the entire city of San Francisco
But if the current batch of ‘AI’ had delicious meat, would we still eat them?
Sure. Why not?
