17 hoursI’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.
What we need are some regulations that are understandable and sensible.
- Zwuzelmaus@feddit.orgEnglish1 day
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. 😄
- bjc@scribe.disroot.orgEnglish1 day
it’s incredible how many godfathers ai has. i’ve lost count
weird i never hear about the godmothers though. wonder why that is?
- CriticalThought@lemmy.worldEnglish9 hours
Let me point out for you the following (one of many articles) about: AI ‘godmother’ Fei-Fei Li.
- magnue@lemmy.worldEnglish1 day
Because there aren’t many women in STEM so it’s statistically unlikely?
- blackbelt352@lemmy.worldEnglish1 day
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.
- blackbelt352@lemmy.worldEnglish7 hours
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.
- mcv@lemmy.zipEnglish13 hours
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.
- blackbelt352@lemmy.worldEnglish7 hours
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.
- mcv@lemmy.zipEnglish6 hours
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.
- blackbelt352@lemmy.worldEnglish4 hours
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.
a woman think that she might be good enough in a given field when she knows more than 99% of it while a man pretends to be an expert if he knows 10%.
- nonentity@sh.itjust.worksEnglish1 day
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.
- MyVeryRealName@lemmy.worldEnglish11 hours
Why does the result of algorithmic iteration seem unintelligent to you?
- red_tomato@lemmy.worldEnglish1 day
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.
- TronBronson@lemmy.worldEnglish1 day
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
- schipelblorp@sh.itjust.worksEnglish1 day
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.
- SreudianFlip@sh.itjust.worksEnglish1 day
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.
- h0tbeef@lemmy.zipEnglish1 day
An important variable of the Turing Test that is never spoken about is the intelligence (or gullibility) of the user.
Then define intelligence.
You can’t just say a thing is intelligent or not intelligent without coming up with a good definition. We are ugly meatbags of mostly water that are constantly driven by chemical processes. How the hell do you call that intelligent? Prove that we are intelligent, and then prove that the “algorithmic iterator”, that uses weighted metrics with an eerie similarity to neurons, isn’t actually intelligent.
- h0tbeef@lemmy.zipEnglish17 hours
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/intelligence
I know you’re not a fan of the dictionary, but they are the authority on words and their meanings.
Before you get too excited about definition 3 I suggest you familiarize yourself with what it means to “compute” https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/compute you’ll notice repeated use of the word “determine”. LLMs are by nature “non-deterministic” or in other words “incapable of determining / incapable of making a determination”.
A computer is deterministic
An LLM is a probabilistic next-word-guessing machine / software as a service
- Darkaga@lemmy.worldEnglish2 hours
Your analysis of definition 3 also precludes the human mind as being capable of computation since biological systems contain inherent randomness that makes their output non deterministic.
- CovfefeKills@lemmy.worldEnglish13 hours
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.
- nonentity@sh.itjust.worksEnglish12 hours
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.
- CovfefeKills@lemmy.worldEnglish11 hours
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.
- nonentity@sh.itjust.worksEnglish1 day
Comprehension, something LLMs are intrinsically incapable of demonstrating, let alone possessing.
- nialv7@lemmy.worldEnglish1 day
you are just replacing one underspecified concept with another. what’s “comprehension”?
- nonentity@sh.itjust.worksEnglish1 day
Literal dictionary definitions:
Comprehension: the ability to understand something.
Understand: perceive the intended meaning of something.
Things LLMs are categorically incapable of embodying, and anyone who believes otherwise is demonstrating an innate challenge of grasping themselves.
you might be thinking you’re pulling a Socrates here, but you began sounding like a annoying 5-year-old that keeps repeating “what’s this, what’s that, why”
- nialv7@lemmy.worldEnglish1 day
people of ancient Greek found Socrates so annoying they sentenced him to death by poison. so… thanks, i guess?
- h0tbeef@lemmy.zipEnglish1 day
It’s what you don’t posses about the workings of LLMs (or basic English).
Jesus fuck… did you actually read your definition?
- the act or action of grasping with the intellect
Okay, we’ve replaced the concept of “intelligence” and just swapped it out with “grasping with the intellect”.
- knowledge gained by comprehending
Nice, using the verb word of “comprehending” to define “comprehension”.
- the capacity for understanding fully
Okay, maybe that’s a start, but it’s incredibly vague.
Also, clicking on the links just resolves back to the most generic circular definition possible. Remind me to never use Merriam-Webster.
At least this gets further: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/comprehension
If we settle on “A thorough understanding” and define understanding as… fuck, we’re back to this circular bullshit again.
Okay, fine, let’s just look at intelligence:
The capacity of mind, especially to understand principles, truths, facts or meanings, acquire knowledge, and apply it to practice; the ability to comprehend and learn; the ability to process sentient experience to generate true beliefs with a justified degree of confidence.
Breaking this down:
- Understand principles, truths - Sure, sounds like an LLM to me. If you ask it to define a scientific principle or fact or Newton’s laws, it can tell you what it is.
- facts or meaning - And, depending on the kind of thing we’re talking about, it can you tell you why it exists.
- acquire knowledge - While it’s not permanent (because context are just thrown away like short-term memories), LLMs have MCPs and other tools to acquire new knowledge.
- apply it in practice - It takes the knowledge it has naturally (training data), acquires new knowledge from its tools, and then applies it to the task it’s looking at.
- the ability to comprehend and learn - Here we go with “comprehension” again. But, let’s assume we all know what “learn” is. A LLM can learn about things, but the main problem is the context size and how we throw that away each session. But, that can be solved by storing facts elsewhere, Markdown rules, other techniques to condense the immediate context into long-term storage. In humans, we call that “long-term memory”. We have our own process to stash short-term memory into long-term memory. We just haven’t experimented enough with the long-term storage part in LLMs.
- the ability to process sentient experience - sentient… well, that’s a pretty weighted word. I also feel like there’s a clear difference between intelligence and sentience. We’re now entering the realm of sensation, thought, and feelings, which are entire different parts of the brain.
I also don’t think “sensations” are impossible to emulate, either.
- h0tbeef@lemmy.zipEnglish17 hours
Words have meanings, and you don’t get to change them in order to strengthen a weak argument.
I’m sorry that those meanings aren’t convenient for your untenable position.
- h0tbeef@lemmy.zipEnglish1 day
I didn’t quote it, I sent you the entry in the hopes that you might read it yourself and learn something
- TronBronson@lemmy.worldEnglish1 day
I’m pretty sure comprehension was like the original success of LLMs, and the responses were a bit wonky. When was the last time an LLM failed to comprehend?
- schipelblorp@sh.itjust.worksEnglish1 day
LLM’s comprehend statistical correlations. If you feed it every chess game, it can tell you which spaces the knight is likely to move to, and which it very unlikely to move to, but it does not understand how the knight moves.
You might say that’s a distinction without a difference, but programs can actually know thing, like a chess program actually does know how a knight moves, and it does so with minimal electricity.
- skibidi@lemmy.worldEnglish1 day
There’s some semantics here.
Large neural networks have been shown to build parallel models of the world that they learn through their training data. A chess model trained only on chess move notation does have an interior board and state that it tracks, despite never being told about a board, the number of pieces, how they move, etc.
LLMs do something similar with language, mapping tokens to ideas in ways that can produce meaningful and grammatically correct output without needing to be formally taught any of this.
Our brains also do things like this - we observe X and then try to intuit Y, the truth of the world and reason for X.
Where this breaks down is humans can then take our guess for Y and propose Z, and try to find it out in the world. If we can’t, then Y is probably wrong, and our new understanding of the world is Y* that is consistent both with X and the absence of Z.
I cannot stress enough how far we are from machines that can do this. They can learn to approximate Y through training, but they have no means to extend that to propose an unobserved Z, no means to update their internal state given the results of that observation (without fully retraining the model on new data - which makes it a new model), and no way to question X given Z - they can talk at great length about data biases but can literally never excise bad data from their training weights. There have been experiments with training models on time-boxed datasets (e.g. stuff up to AD 1880) and asking it about modern concepts - predictably hilarious results.
All the current ‘AI’ stuff is smoke and mirrors around this very hard problem. The machines can talk, but they can’t think (Z) and can’t learn (Y*).
they can talk at great length about data biases but can literally never excise bad data from their training weights
And you can’t excise 20 years of Fox News from some boomer conservative. They can literally never back down from their biases.
Training data is a lot more permanent than context, but at the same time, it’s not absolute, either. I’ve seen plenty of thinking blocks where it knows about X from its training data, but perhaps it’s out-of-date and should check other sources. It has the web tools, finds newer information, processes it as part of its problem set, and solves the problem with newer information.
The core issue is we throw all of this data away when we’re done with the problem! A LLM only has so much context, so it starts to compact after a while. And even if it doesn’t, we voluntarily chuck that shit out the window, as soon as the session ends.
It’s like Lenny from Memento. You got a baseline person who constantly believes he’s got to find his wife’s killer. And even when he tries to supplant his lack of long-term memory with photos and tattoos, it’s a shit system with shittier outcomes. Also, he doesn’t get to choose when his memory disappears. It just happens with some kind of stress trigger. Because of how flawed Lemmy is, do we call him somebody who can’t think and can’t learn? Is he intelligent? Is he even sentient?
Though, in the case of an LLM, it doesn’t have to be set up this way. We can still stash a long-term version of memories as rules and other permanent files. In fact, this is encouraged. Everything starts with a system prompt, a set of rules, and the user prompt. All of that is adjustable.
And yes, you can train out biases. Rather easily, actually. You don’t even have to adjust weights. You post-train through rules files.
But, in terms of philosophical questions, can we call LLMs intelligent if we can edit their memories at a whim? Is a brainwashed boomer intelligent because Fox News hacked their memories and biases? Is Lenny intelligent because he can’t form new memories?
You have to remember that just about every argument for or against LLMs can also apply to humans, and you can’t really arrive at definitions without clearly separating what doesn’t apply to LLMs and does apply to humans, in all cases.
- skibidi@lemmy.worldEnglish2 hours
And yes, you can train out biases. Rather easily, actually. You don’t even have to adjust weights. You post-train through rules files.
The assertion is not about whether ‘you’ can do it. It is that the model cannot do this itself.
A human recognizing a bias in the model and correcting it is not evidence robot intelligence, it is further evidence for human intelligence.
Training is absolute, it determines the set of relationships the model can represent between input and output. Context, rules files, system prompts, etc. operate only on the conditional probabilities within this set and are impermanent. This is ‘priming’ in human psychology, and why a person in a herpetology class will talk about Pythonic features differently than in a coding class.
As an example of how this is not real learning and is inadequate to solve real problems, here is a paper where the authors challenged multiple models to solve unfamiliar games where they need to discover the rules through play and feedback. Even the ‘best’ model performed pitifully compared to humans.
If you feed it every chess game, it can tell you which spaces the knight is likely to move to, and which it very unlikely to move to, but it does not understand how the knight moves.
Well, it knows how the knight moves, but it might forget that’s it’s an important rule after it starts to lose context. That’s also how LLMs start to lose track of what’s actually on the board.
There are definitely differences between LLMs and Neural Networks, but at the end of the day, they are both just gigabytes of weights. And really, both types are similar to what the human brain possesses. People tend to forget that the human brain isn’t just some monolithic thing. There’s a lot of difference specialized pieces. If you ask Magnus Carlsen how he calculated the best move on the chess board in a blitz game, he literally cannot tell you! It just appears, because that part of the brain is trained and hardwired to calculate good moves, based on the current board state.
A LLM uses logic and reasoning to arrive at a solution. That’s not really compatible with intense pre-trained calculation. You can’t talk yourself into a chess move at the speed the game requires. You can quickly think about possibilities, but you have to already have pre-trained calculations to get at least 90-95% of the way there, to pick from a few different lines.
On the other hand, Neural Networks beat the shit out of the greatest grandmasters in chess. Hands down. On average, they are at least +500 ELO to the best GMs. And everybody in the chess world knows this, which is why everybody uses these tools outside of 1v1 human to human games. (Obviously, cheating is taken very seriously, and has made plenty of headlines over the years.) Every GM analyzes their own games using those engines, to pick apart mistakes.
- Fishnoodle@lemmy.worldEnglish1 day
They never comprehend. They ingest information and find close approximations for responses, but they don’t comprehend any part of the process. If they did, they wouldn’t hallucinate complete bullshit answers and spit them out like they were fact
- mysticalone@lemmy.worldEnglish18 hours
Everyone use big word. U no big word. Small words funny. Upvote
- encelado748@feddit.orgEnglish1 day
To be honest human spew bullshit all the time when they do not understand something. Or people are confidently incorrect all the time as they are remembering incorrectly. The amount of bullshitting is more a meter for intelligence, not something that discriminate between intelligence or the lack thereof.
- h0tbeef@lemmy.zipEnglish1 day
They have not comprehended anything to date, as they don’t actually understand anything, or have an intellect with which to do so. They are probabilistic next word guessing machines, that is what is happening behind the smoke and mirrors, not “thought”.
pretty sure it comes from latin “inter-lego” (collect or pick out information, like you would pick out the good fruit from a bush with good and bad fruit).
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/intelligent
so it’s about filtering what you want to have from what you don’t want to have. i.e. a mathematical function f : X -> R which maps an object x to a real number to figure out how desirable that object is, i.e. assign value to it.
technically you don’t even need neural networks for it, sorting algorithms employ this kind of function all the time to sort objects according to some criteria.
- TronBronson@lemmy.worldEnglish1 day
I enjoy speaking to the AI more than humans on most topics I find worthy of discussion.
- nonentity@sh.itjust.worksEnglish1 day
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.
- Zarobi@aussie.zoneEnglish20 hours
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.
- username_1@discuss.tchncs.deEnglish1 day
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.
That’s extremely challenging for a lot of people. A lot of people aren’t even willing to accept animals experience pain.
- username_1@discuss.tchncs.deEnglish1 day
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.
- username_1@discuss.tchncs.deEnglish1 day
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.
- Zwuzelmaus@feddit.orgEnglish1 day
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.
- h0tbeef@lemmy.zipEnglish1 day
I don’t accept the computer as intelligent or a being, and I love my computer (it’s objectively an inanimate object tho).
- TronBronson@lemmy.worldEnglish1 day
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
- eestileib@sh.itjust.worksEnglish1 day
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.
- h0tbeef@lemmy.zipEnglish1 day
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.
- melfie@lemmy.zipEnglish1 day
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/
- Darkonion@lemmy.worldEnglish16 hours
But if the current batch of ‘AI’ had delicious meat, would we still eat them?
Hey. It isn’t fair to slap that label on the entire city of San Francisco
