this post was submitted on 21 Feb 2024
288 points (95.0% liked)
Technology
59358 readers
4664 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
It’s not. LLM is just a statistical model. Nothing special about it. Nothing different what we’ve already been doing for a while. This only validates my statement that we call just about anything “AI” these days.
We don’t even know what true intelligence is, yet we are quick to make claims that this is “AI”. There is no consciousness here. There is no self awareness. No emotion. No ability to reason or deduct. Anyone who thinks otherwise is just fooling themselves.
It’s a buzz word to get people riled up. It’s completely disingenuous.
I think the point of the Turing test is to avoid thorny questions about the definition of intelligence. We cant precisely define intelligence, but we know that normally functioning humans are intelligent. Therefore, if we talk to a computer and it is indistinguishable from a human in a conversation, then it is intelligent by definition.
It's more like if you don't treat it as a person, just in case, you risk committing a great evil out of arrogance.
So, by your definition, no AI is AI, and we don't know what AI is, since we don't know what the I is?
While I hate that AI is just a buzzword for scam artists and tech influencers nowadays, dismissing a term seems a bit overkill. It also seems overkill when it's not something that academics/scholars seem particularly bothered by.
Of all of these qualities, only the last one—the ability to reason or deduct—is a widely-accepted prerequisite for intelligence.
I would also argue that contemporary LLMs demonstrate the ability to reason by correctly deriving mathematical proofs that do not appear in the training datasets. How would you be able to accomplish such a feat without some degree of reasoning?