I mean “without human intervention or input”

There’s some fear mongering going around (pushed by AI companies to build hype) about AIs “going rogue” or “breaking containment” or other anthropomorphic language suggesting that AIs are capable of acting on their own.

These stories are all verifiably false though, the computer does not do things without being asked to by someone.

To be clear, I’m fully against AI. I just don’t like when I see people giving it credit for shit it cannot and did not do, or ascribe sentience to it, or some dumb shit like that.

Yeah, I’m fairly confident that they’re near the ceiling of what is possible with the current technology.

Also there’s so much slop out there now that LLMs are beginning to train on the slop and effectively giving themselves a sort of digital folding prion disease.

I follow a lot of journalists who cover AI specifically, and everything I’m seeing shows quality increasing more slowly over time as the cost builds at an increasing rate.

The financial fuckery does make it hard to keep track of, but the fact that they’re even engaged in that sort of financing betrays that they are not in good financial health.

It’s nothing like saying “plants can’t be alive”, that’s preposterous.

You make the mistake of thinking that brains and computers are exactly the same when we only really understand the workings of one of those things (computers).

All of the world’s top neuroscientists would tell you that we don’t really actually know how the human brain works.

People who are far more qualified than you to make such a comparison would not do so.

Your argument is built upon a logical fallacy known as “false equivalence”. If you’re not familiar, it means that you are presenting two things as equivalent based on flawed logic.

You’ve probably heard someone use an idiom about comparing apples and oranges right? Doing so would be a false equivalence, that’s where the idiom comes from.

Another example of false equivalence would be your comparison of my logically sound argument to a completely unrelated and nonsensical assertion about plants.

We need to get rid of the surveillance architecture, but AI is only really dangerous to the cognitive abilities of those who use it.

It literally cannot do things on its own. (I know there are a lot of articles who say it can, but they’re just lying to you for money).

The way people reach that extremely logical conclusion is by looking at 1) the diminishing returns of continued training and of building new models, 2) The data center buildout required for those diminishing returns is rising exponentially in cost, leading to many planned centers being cancelled and/or running behind schedule, 3) These LLMs are not even close to profitable, and they are not useful enough to justify the cost of using them.

As they continue to attempt to improve the LLMs, the costs rise exponentially, the results (and profitability) do not.

My TV isn’t allowed to connect to the internet. It doesn’t know the password. No more ads :)

This is an interesting study. I wonder why there’s such a disparity between the number of AI ‘participants’ (10) and human participants (1,916). I wonder how adding additional AI models would impact the data.

Anyway, this is just benchmarking the AI on 6 language specific tasks. They were programmed and set up specifically to perform whatever specific one task they had to do at the time, that is what computers do. The fact that computers are 1% better at recognizing other computers than humans are is irrelevant.

AI cannot pass the Turing Test, this article is about “6 Turing like tasks” and it can’t even pass those yet, lmao. You know they’re already seeing diminishing returns in further training right?

Even in this article it says that even if AI could pass a real Turing Test it wouldn’t be a sign of intelligence or cognition.

As far as understanding the technology goes? It makes me more qualified than 99% of the AI glazers I encounter, but you may be an exception.

To say that an LLM is “less dumb” is a misnomer tho, because it implies that the LLM is “thinking” rather than “calculating”.

My issue here is the anthropomorphic language being used to intentionally mislead people who don’t have even a tertiary understanding of the underlying mechanics.

Surely you know that under the hood it’s all just algorithms. 1s and 0s run through a fluctuating probability equation.

You are missing the point entirely.

I am not talking about a hypothetical person.

You fail to see the third option (the correct one). That your arguments are poorly constructed and prioritize defensiveness over critical thought, that your reading comprehension is inadequate to understand the text you are currently engaged in a reactionary response towards. Your hubris is preventing you from engaging in an introspective analysis of your own argument and the assumptions that are bundled with it.

The first sentence of this Wikipedia article literally immediately disqualifies LLMs, lmao

“Sentience is the ability to experience feelings”

Every sentence that follows continues to disqualify LLMs

If you continue down to the section on “digital sentience” you will find other sentences that directly contradict your assertions, such as ‘Indeed, leading AI textbooks do not mention “sentience” at all.‘

It’s basically 100% agreed on that there are not currently any sentient computers, and there never has been. Do some people think that we might have them one day? Yes a very small number of the experts do, but they don’t know how to get there, and they aren’t close to being there now.

The people calling their AI self aware and claiming that it took actions without their instructions (which is verifiably false) are lying to you for money.

Think of it as a public service announcement.

Judging by this comment thread, it’s a badly needed one.

No, my argument is that your conceptualization of sentience is incomplete.

If you believe an LLM could fulfill either of those definitions then you either don’t understand how an LLM works, or you don’t understand the definitions of those words.

Words have meanings dog

You can’t just say a label applies to something, despite the meaning of that label.

I work in tech

You’re underestimating most people

If all you got from that explanation was “no u” then you need to work on your reading comprehension.

I agree that this conversation doesn’t seem to be bearing any fruit tho

Well, that may very well be the most depressing comment I’ve ever read.

You either need to work on your listening skills or find some new less-vacant people to interact with, because what you’re saying is insane

Perhaps I should seek a sponsorship with all of the mentions this thread has necessitated. Unfortunately I’m not currently on the payroll (or formerly for that matter, lol).

Fearmongering about the idea of a neural network gaining consciousness is basically like doing free advertising for AI companies lmao

You are ascribing a power to them that they do not possess

For the record, I think neural networks have a lot of useful applications; for example, radiological image recognition. The term “AI” basically has no meaning though, and is most commonly used to describe LLMs, a technology that has very few (if any) good real world applications.