▲ 72 ▼ Why your local LLM feels dumber than it is (forum.level1techs.com) submitted 2 months ago by inari@piefed.zip to c/technology@lemmy.world 103 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] brucethemoose@lemmy.world 19 points 2 months ago* (36 children) I mean... No? Absolutely not. I dont even know where to begin. Maybe with their state being fixed in time; LLMs do not change. An sci fi analogy might be the "no timers" in orion's arm, who are but a single thought frozen in an infinite loop in time: https://www.orionsarm.com/eg-article/47f4311eaef31 Except they arent even that, because its just a next word completion model, not something that thinks. It is not self aware. https://arxiv.org/pdf/2503.09211 https://openreview.net/forum?id=klU4737opt https://arxiv.org/abs/2504.09762 This becomes (to me) very obvious if you ever use an LLM in raw completion mode. It very smart, but at the end of the day its no different than a weather prediction model spitting out probabilities for a storm system. Chat finetuning is meant to get humans to anthropomorphize them by training on human preferences, and the interface further reinforces this. Its all a trick, albeit a very elaborote one. Will future architectures be closer to "thinking?" Maybe. But we are a long way away. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 36 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] ThirdConsul@lemmy.zip 4 points 2 months ago (2 children) Them LLMs do not change You Not with agents and chain of thought. Agents can run for hours continuously Those are not the same concepts. The model of LLM remain unchanged. Agents running for hours just modify the prompt they input into an LLM model. I do not care about the rest of discussion, just swoop in to clarify that distinction. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] hirihit640@sh.itjust.works 1 point 2 months ago (1 child) Fair enough. When I say that AI might be sentient, I include systems like "LLM + agent harness", treating the whole system as AI. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Epp@lemmus.org 1 point 2 months ago That's too much for their tiny brains to handle. permalink fedilink source parent [–] rayboy@lemmy.world 0 points 2 months ago (20 children) Are we not just prediction systems with more neurons? Now im not saying LLMs are human at all because to be human is to have gone through our exact evolutionary path, but we really are in a lot of ways much more similar than you think. At least the speaking part of our brain is. The argument that LLMs are fixed in time does not contradict consciousness. Say a human was stuck in a time loop and the human is asked the same question every single loop, at the exact same time, in the exact same way, with every single atom being in the exact place. Would their answer change? I would argue no, the same exact neurons would be stimulated every time that would cause the same exact answer every time. We don't even have a solid definition of what is concious. Are insects conscious? Like the fruit fly, we have modeled all of its neural paths and it simplifies down to essentially being a robot that responds to stimuli. What does make humans special is our ability to learn. But what when an LLM trains its self? Is that not learning? I think the question of consciousness is too complex to simply say one way or the other and it is foolish to simply it this way. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 20 child comments replies: [–] brucethemoose@lemmy.world 4 points 2 months ago* (5 children) But what when an LLM trains its self? Thats what I'm saying. They cannot do this, not even close. Even a fruit fly is somewhat adaptive and can respond to novel stimuli, but an LLM effectively cant. There are tiny experimental models closer to a fruit fly than large LLMs now. ...What about future world models with some adaptive learning loop, sampling stripped out, and so on? Yeah! That would be fascinating. Then sentience starts to become more of a question. But thats not what LLMs are. People like Altman and Modi have grossly overexaggerated what current LLM architectures are capable of, they trained the LLMs to reinforce the illusion as much as they can, and they arent to inclined to change it. Hence all the good researchers have fled to research world models, and are saying transformers LLMs are not a viable path forward. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] h0tbeef@lemmy.zip -1 points 2 months ago (4 children) Even in your highly optimistic scenario, the AI wouldn’t even come close to being comparable to actual sentience. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] brucethemoose@lemmy.world 4 points 2 months ago* (3 children) Well, theres a lot of experimentation with actual neural nets mimicing biology (or literally using biological neurons), and I think that could start to raise the spectre. World model research could be a significant component of that. In principle, OP is right; humans are just machines. All I constest is that transformers LLMs are even in the same ballpark, or possibly a path there... they are not. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] h0tbeef@lemmy.zip 1 point 2 months ago* (2 children) Well it sounds like we agree then. I would think you would need actual biological structures to achieve sentience. That’s a lot different than what these people are calling AI tho. Edit: Also, if it is built out of natural biological pieces, at what point does it cease to be “artificial”? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] brucethemoose@lemmy.world 3 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 child) Well biological structures can be replicated mechanically. So at risk of being pedantic, that's not strictly true. I view "artificial" as just a term for conscious, purpose construction, whereas "natural" does not involve any conscious intelligence, as in "naturally occurring in nature." But even that is a spectrum, I guess, with genetic manipulation, BCIs, all sorts of intermediate possibilities. I'd call a constructed, purely biological brain "artificial" because, even if it was grown naturally, it was built with conscious intent. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] rayboy@lemmy.world 2 points 2 months ago Correct, nothing is special about biological consciousness. If these exact functions are replicated mechanically/artificially, the outcomes would be the same. permalink fedilink source parent [–] h0tbeef@lemmy.zip 2 points 2 months ago (13 children) I can’t believe how many pro-AI arguments essentially boil down to “I do not understand words”. We have a very solid and explicit definition of what conscious means: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/conscious#medicalDictionary The best neuroscientists in the world do not even fully understand the complicated intricacies of the workings of the human mind. We do understand 100% exactly how computers work. There is no comparison. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 13 child comments replies: [–] rayboy@lemmy.world 5 points 2 months ago (9 children) I haven't even argued that AI is concious, I have said that we do not understand consciousness enough to define it. You have completely missed the point. This is Dunning-Kruger at its peak. You are vastly oversimplifying things, at what size of brain is an animal considered conscious or capable of thought? Define thought. We don't even have a solid understanding of life, much less thoughts. Yes we have a word definition, no we do not know where the line begins and ends. It is a philosophical question that remains unanswered. This definition is already making so many assumptions and over simplifications. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/thought We understand that the brain is what gives us our cognition, we understand that the brain is made up of chemical and electrical signals. We are not special. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 9 child comments replies: [–] SlimePirate@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 2 months ago This dude is a Dunning-Kruger case study. Simply by the shear overconfidence permalink fedilink source parent [–] h0tbeef@lemmy.zip -2 points 2 months ago (7 children) I’m sorry that you have trouble grasping so many basic concepts. Ironic of you to reference Dunning-Kruger. All animals are conscious as far as I’m aware, though the complexity of their thoughts may vary. They all act of their own volition, computers do not and cannot act of their own volition. You do not have to fully understand every aspect of consciousness in order to recognize that inanimate objects do not have it. “Will” is a component of consciousness, this is commonly understood. Computers are tools, they have no will. Computers calculate, they do not think, these are different operations. I am not oversimplifying things, you are under-thinking things that are already simple (likely due to cognitive offloading). permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 7 child comments replies: [–] rayboy@lemmy.world 5 points 2 months ago (2 children) So your response boils down to "no u," and insulting. I believe we are done here. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] admin@lemmy.my-box.dev 3 points 2 months ago For what it's worth, I thought it was an interesting read until the other person went full ad hominem. permalink fedilink source parent [–] h0tbeef@lemmy.zip -2 points 2 months ago 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 permalink fedilink source parent [–] SlimePirate@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 2 months ago (3 children) The argument basically: "'computers are not sentient, because I say that they are not sentient" permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] admin@lemmy.my-box.dev 4 points 2 months ago Don't forget the dictionary quotes and the personal attacks. permalink fedilink source parent [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Epp@lemmus.org 1 point 2 months ago As if your comprehension, yet your arrogance is stunning because it is massive and is only dwarfed by your propensity for being wrong. permalink fedilink source parent load more comments (1 reply) [–] SlimePirate@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 2 months ago (2 children) Discussing the consciousness of neural networks is NOT being pro-AI. I'd say it's even the opposite, as it displays the danger of such a technology. Most of the words in the definition have multiple interpretations, it is not as easy as you wish it would be. Finally, we do NOT at all know how trained neural networks work. We know how training and inference work. We can read the neurons, but the shear size of weights make it a rather impenetrable black box we have to study, partially, to understand the goals of the emergent sub networks. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] h0tbeef@lemmy.zip -2 points 2 months ago (1 child) 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] SlimePirate@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 2 months ago I am not fearmongering the fact it helps or not AI companies is not relevant here. You are getting off topic. permalink fedilink source parent [–] SlimePirate@lemmy.dbzer0.com -5 points 2 months ago (10 children) The fact they are trained to complete sentences and are thus word predicting models only tells us vaguely how they work. It does not tell us anything about their sentience. The sentience, if there is, comes from the emergent reasoning that develops in the massive neural network to offer actual good predictions: the more you think, the better the predictions. For example, models trained to produce textual board games predictions can be sounded to show they developed subnetworks corresponding to an inner representation of the states of the game. Models trained to produce images have emergent subnetworks on depth-maps, contours and lighting. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 10 child comments replies: [–] Fawkes@lemmy.zip 4 points 2 months ago (9 children) Are cells sentient? Bacteria, fungi, etc. Do you think they have any degree of interiority, like how simple animals do? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 9 child comments replies: [–] Epp@lemmus.org 1 point 2 months ago (8 children) Exactly. It's not so cut and dry. Are they? You can never know until you experience their existence. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 8 child comments replies: [–] Fawkes@lemmy.zip 1 point 2 months ago (7 children) Lol no. Actually cells are demonstrably NOT sentient. They have no capacity for choice. No capacity for emotion or experience. They are literally molecular machinery. And we(scientists) understand that machinery to a shocking degree. If you think cells have any degree of sentience, then you must make a similar argument for advanced clockwork machines. Not robots, pure wind-up clockwork automata. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 7 child comments replies: [–] Epp@lemmus.org 1 point 2 months ago (6 children) Ah, so you've experienced each of their existences? Fascinating. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] Fawkes@lemmy.zip 1 point 2 months ago (5 children) Please explain to me how a wristwatch is sentient or conscious. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] Epp@lemmus.org 1 point 2 months ago (4 children) I can't, since I've never been a wristwatch. Maybe they're not, or maybe they are through a mechanism for which science has no current explanation. We can't know, only surmise. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Fawkes@lemmy.zip 1 point 2 months ago (3 children) Okay, then you're not actually engaging in any degree of coherence. Your ignorance is not wisdom, despite what you seem to have convinced yourself. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] Epp@lemmus.org 1 point 2 months ago (2 children) That's some impressive hubris you've got. So tell me, in your infinite wisdom, from where does sentience arise and what is the smallest organism that is sentient? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Fawkes@lemmy.zip 0 points 2 months ago (1 child) No, I don't think I will. Because I don't believe there is any answer I can give you that won't be merry with more insults and arrogance. I made the claim that sentience cannot exist in a purely mechanistic system, like a wrist watch. Because there is nothing there unexplained, unknown, or more nuanced than gears and springs. The burden of proof lies on you to explain how a wristwatch could have any degree of sentience. And insulting me does nothing but show the emptiness of your claim, and the fragility of your pseudo-wisdom. Denying ALL knowledge by taking a bong rip and saying "But how can we ever really know?" It's not wisdom or humility. It's pretending ignorance is wisdom. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Epp@lemmus.org 1 point 2 months ago You seem to have this backwards. YOU'RE the one making a claim, so the burden of proof is on you. I'm saying it's impossible to know, you are saying you know without a doubt. Prove it. permalink fedilink source parent load more comments (1 reply) [–] Untamed_Star@lemmy.blahaj.zone 4 points 2 months ago if a machine looks and acts like a duck it is still not a duck. permalink fedilink source parent [–] h0tbeef@lemmy.zip 0 points 2 months ago (17 children) Do you not interact with any other actual humans? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 17 child comments replies: [–] hirihit640@sh.itjust.works -2 points 2 months ago (16 children) I do, and I can say that the conversations with AI (especially using tools like character.ai) are 99% the same permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 16 child comments replies: [–] kadu@scribe.disroot.org 2 points 2 months ago (1 child) I come back to Lemmy after 6 months and immediately read this. So that was a mistake. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] hirihit640@sh.itjust.works 2 points 2 months ago Some humans think humans are so special. "Sentient" and "conscious". Now I don't claim that computers are special, I think they are just as non-special as humans. permalink fedilink source parent [–] h0tbeef@lemmy.zip 1 point 2 months ago (13 children) 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 permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 13 child comments replies: [–] hirihit640@sh.itjust.works -1 points 2 months ago (12 children) Sounds like you haven't tried modern AI yet. I could train an AI on your comment history and copy you, and nobody would be able to tell the difference permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 12 child comments replies: [–] Epp@lemmus.org 3 points 2 months ago* (7 children) I've tried. They're adamant against AI here. It's not even worth the discussion. There's an army of belligerent people here who have made up their minds that LLM are "stochastic parrots" and they're convinced they understand exactly how they work. No one can tell them otherwise. Doesn't even matter your credentials. They're the experts here. If you argue, they'll only belittle you. Save yourself the frustration and heartache; just silently pity them. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 7 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Epp@lemmus.org 1 point 2 months ago* (5 children) Uh huh... That makes you specifically qualified on the topic? Far more than myself, certainly, with my MSc in Machine Learning. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Epp@lemmus.org 1 point 2 months ago (3 children) Surely you know that under the hood we're all just algorithms? Electrical impulses determining what we're going to do before our own consciousness are aware of the impending decision. You make the mistake of ascribing more importance to the "1s and 0s" of neuron activity we ourselves encompass, and imagining that a different arrangement of that exact same activity could not possibly yield a similar outcome. It's like saying plants can't be alive because they don't have brains. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Epp@lemmus.org 1 point 2 months ago (1 child) Sorry, 'h0tbeef', I forgot that only you understand consciousness and only you know how it is defined. So only you know what qualifies, because of your superior understanding that no one else can possibly hope to have. Of course, only humans are capable of being conscious, you're absolutely right as always. You're so clever, you should go reward yourself with a cookie. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] h0tbeef@lemmy.zip 0 points 2 months ago Oh, have we reached the stage of the debate where you project your insecurities onto me in a desperate bid to avoid conceding your palpably untenable position? How dignified. If you wish to gain more knowledge and understanding, I would suggest you stop outsourcing your cognition to a chatbot. permalink fedilink source parent load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (1 reply) [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] hirihit640@sh.itjust.works 1 point 2 months ago* (2 children) You overestimate most people. Here's a study from 2025 https://arxiv.org/html/2211.13087 Among AI models, Blenderbot stood out: in AI-AI conversations, it was judged human 67% of the times - more often than actual human-human conversations. In human-AI conversations, human participants were labeled as humans 68% of the time, and AIs were classified as AI 56% of the time. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] h0tbeef@lemmy.zip 1 point 2 months ago* (1 child) 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] hirihit640@sh.itjust.works 1 point 2 months ago Something I should point out just in case is that 50% success rate is the same as random chance. So when the study says: AIs were classified as AI 56% of the time. That really means that humans could not tell the difference between AI and human, since their success rate was almost the same as random chance. 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. Sure, and that task was "imitate humans", and these computers seem remarkably good at it. That's what I'm saying. I don't care that these AI work differently than humans. They can imitate humans so well that humans can't tell the difference. permalink fedilink source parent load more comments (1 reply)
[–] brucethemoose@lemmy.world 19 points 2 months ago* (36 children) I mean... No? Absolutely not. I dont even know where to begin. Maybe with their state being fixed in time; LLMs do not change. An sci fi analogy might be the "no timers" in orion's arm, who are but a single thought frozen in an infinite loop in time: https://www.orionsarm.com/eg-article/47f4311eaef31 Except they arent even that, because its just a next word completion model, not something that thinks. It is not self aware. https://arxiv.org/pdf/2503.09211 https://openreview.net/forum?id=klU4737opt https://arxiv.org/abs/2504.09762 This becomes (to me) very obvious if you ever use an LLM in raw completion mode. It very smart, but at the end of the day its no different than a weather prediction model spitting out probabilities for a storm system. Chat finetuning is meant to get humans to anthropomorphize them by training on human preferences, and the interface further reinforces this. Its all a trick, albeit a very elaborote one. Will future architectures be closer to "thinking?" Maybe. But we are a long way away. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 36 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] ThirdConsul@lemmy.zip 4 points 2 months ago (2 children) Them LLMs do not change You Not with agents and chain of thought. Agents can run for hours continuously Those are not the same concepts. The model of LLM remain unchanged. Agents running for hours just modify the prompt they input into an LLM model. I do not care about the rest of discussion, just swoop in to clarify that distinction. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] hirihit640@sh.itjust.works 1 point 2 months ago (1 child) Fair enough. When I say that AI might be sentient, I include systems like "LLM + agent harness", treating the whole system as AI. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Epp@lemmus.org 1 point 2 months ago That's too much for their tiny brains to handle. permalink fedilink source parent [–] rayboy@lemmy.world 0 points 2 months ago (20 children) Are we not just prediction systems with more neurons? Now im not saying LLMs are human at all because to be human is to have gone through our exact evolutionary path, but we really are in a lot of ways much more similar than you think. At least the speaking part of our brain is. The argument that LLMs are fixed in time does not contradict consciousness. Say a human was stuck in a time loop and the human is asked the same question every single loop, at the exact same time, in the exact same way, with every single atom being in the exact place. Would their answer change? I would argue no, the same exact neurons would be stimulated every time that would cause the same exact answer every time. We don't even have a solid definition of what is concious. Are insects conscious? Like the fruit fly, we have modeled all of its neural paths and it simplifies down to essentially being a robot that responds to stimuli. What does make humans special is our ability to learn. But what when an LLM trains its self? Is that not learning? I think the question of consciousness is too complex to simply say one way or the other and it is foolish to simply it this way. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 20 child comments replies: [–] brucethemoose@lemmy.world 4 points 2 months ago* (5 children) But what when an LLM trains its self? Thats what I'm saying. They cannot do this, not even close. Even a fruit fly is somewhat adaptive and can respond to novel stimuli, but an LLM effectively cant. There are tiny experimental models closer to a fruit fly than large LLMs now. ...What about future world models with some adaptive learning loop, sampling stripped out, and so on? Yeah! That would be fascinating. Then sentience starts to become more of a question. But thats not what LLMs are. People like Altman and Modi have grossly overexaggerated what current LLM architectures are capable of, they trained the LLMs to reinforce the illusion as much as they can, and they arent to inclined to change it. Hence all the good researchers have fled to research world models, and are saying transformers LLMs are not a viable path forward. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] h0tbeef@lemmy.zip -1 points 2 months ago (4 children) Even in your highly optimistic scenario, the AI wouldn’t even come close to being comparable to actual sentience. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] brucethemoose@lemmy.world 4 points 2 months ago* (3 children) Well, theres a lot of experimentation with actual neural nets mimicing biology (or literally using biological neurons), and I think that could start to raise the spectre. World model research could be a significant component of that. In principle, OP is right; humans are just machines. All I constest is that transformers LLMs are even in the same ballpark, or possibly a path there... they are not. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] h0tbeef@lemmy.zip 1 point 2 months ago* (2 children) Well it sounds like we agree then. I would think you would need actual biological structures to achieve sentience. That’s a lot different than what these people are calling AI tho. Edit: Also, if it is built out of natural biological pieces, at what point does it cease to be “artificial”? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] brucethemoose@lemmy.world 3 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 child) Well biological structures can be replicated mechanically. So at risk of being pedantic, that's not strictly true. I view "artificial" as just a term for conscious, purpose construction, whereas "natural" does not involve any conscious intelligence, as in "naturally occurring in nature." But even that is a spectrum, I guess, with genetic manipulation, BCIs, all sorts of intermediate possibilities. I'd call a constructed, purely biological brain "artificial" because, even if it was grown naturally, it was built with conscious intent. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] rayboy@lemmy.world 2 points 2 months ago Correct, nothing is special about biological consciousness. If these exact functions are replicated mechanically/artificially, the outcomes would be the same. permalink fedilink source parent [–] h0tbeef@lemmy.zip 2 points 2 months ago (13 children) I can’t believe how many pro-AI arguments essentially boil down to “I do not understand words”. We have a very solid and explicit definition of what conscious means: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/conscious#medicalDictionary The best neuroscientists in the world do not even fully understand the complicated intricacies of the workings of the human mind. We do understand 100% exactly how computers work. There is no comparison. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 13 child comments replies: [–] rayboy@lemmy.world 5 points 2 months ago (9 children) I haven't even argued that AI is concious, I have said that we do not understand consciousness enough to define it. You have completely missed the point. This is Dunning-Kruger at its peak. You are vastly oversimplifying things, at what size of brain is an animal considered conscious or capable of thought? Define thought. We don't even have a solid understanding of life, much less thoughts. Yes we have a word definition, no we do not know where the line begins and ends. It is a philosophical question that remains unanswered. This definition is already making so many assumptions and over simplifications. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/thought We understand that the brain is what gives us our cognition, we understand that the brain is made up of chemical and electrical signals. We are not special. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 9 child comments replies: [–] SlimePirate@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 2 months ago This dude is a Dunning-Kruger case study. Simply by the shear overconfidence permalink fedilink source parent [–] h0tbeef@lemmy.zip -2 points 2 months ago (7 children) I’m sorry that you have trouble grasping so many basic concepts. Ironic of you to reference Dunning-Kruger. All animals are conscious as far as I’m aware, though the complexity of their thoughts may vary. They all act of their own volition, computers do not and cannot act of their own volition. You do not have to fully understand every aspect of consciousness in order to recognize that inanimate objects do not have it. “Will” is a component of consciousness, this is commonly understood. Computers are tools, they have no will. Computers calculate, they do not think, these are different operations. I am not oversimplifying things, you are under-thinking things that are already simple (likely due to cognitive offloading). permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 7 child comments replies: [–] rayboy@lemmy.world 5 points 2 months ago (2 children) So your response boils down to "no u," and insulting. I believe we are done here. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] admin@lemmy.my-box.dev 3 points 2 months ago For what it's worth, I thought it was an interesting read until the other person went full ad hominem. permalink fedilink source parent [–] h0tbeef@lemmy.zip -2 points 2 months ago 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 permalink fedilink source parent [–] SlimePirate@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 2 months ago (3 children) The argument basically: "'computers are not sentient, because I say that they are not sentient" permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] admin@lemmy.my-box.dev 4 points 2 months ago Don't forget the dictionary quotes and the personal attacks. permalink fedilink source parent [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Epp@lemmus.org 1 point 2 months ago As if your comprehension, yet your arrogance is stunning because it is massive and is only dwarfed by your propensity for being wrong. permalink fedilink source parent load more comments (1 reply) [–] SlimePirate@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 2 months ago (2 children) Discussing the consciousness of neural networks is NOT being pro-AI. I'd say it's even the opposite, as it displays the danger of such a technology. Most of the words in the definition have multiple interpretations, it is not as easy as you wish it would be. Finally, we do NOT at all know how trained neural networks work. We know how training and inference work. We can read the neurons, but the shear size of weights make it a rather impenetrable black box we have to study, partially, to understand the goals of the emergent sub networks. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] h0tbeef@lemmy.zip -2 points 2 months ago (1 child) 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] SlimePirate@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 2 months ago I am not fearmongering the fact it helps or not AI companies is not relevant here. You are getting off topic. permalink fedilink source parent [–] SlimePirate@lemmy.dbzer0.com -5 points 2 months ago (10 children) The fact they are trained to complete sentences and are thus word predicting models only tells us vaguely how they work. It does not tell us anything about their sentience. The sentience, if there is, comes from the emergent reasoning that develops in the massive neural network to offer actual good predictions: the more you think, the better the predictions. For example, models trained to produce textual board games predictions can be sounded to show they developed subnetworks corresponding to an inner representation of the states of the game. Models trained to produce images have emergent subnetworks on depth-maps, contours and lighting. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 10 child comments replies: [–] Fawkes@lemmy.zip 4 points 2 months ago (9 children) Are cells sentient? Bacteria, fungi, etc. Do you think they have any degree of interiority, like how simple animals do? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 9 child comments replies: [–] Epp@lemmus.org 1 point 2 months ago (8 children) Exactly. It's not so cut and dry. Are they? You can never know until you experience their existence. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 8 child comments replies: [–] Fawkes@lemmy.zip 1 point 2 months ago (7 children) Lol no. Actually cells are demonstrably NOT sentient. They have no capacity for choice. No capacity for emotion or experience. They are literally molecular machinery. And we(scientists) understand that machinery to a shocking degree. If you think cells have any degree of sentience, then you must make a similar argument for advanced clockwork machines. Not robots, pure wind-up clockwork automata. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 7 child comments replies: [–] Epp@lemmus.org 1 point 2 months ago (6 children) Ah, so you've experienced each of their existences? Fascinating. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] Fawkes@lemmy.zip 1 point 2 months ago (5 children) Please explain to me how a wristwatch is sentient or conscious. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] Epp@lemmus.org 1 point 2 months ago (4 children) I can't, since I've never been a wristwatch. Maybe they're not, or maybe they are through a mechanism for which science has no current explanation. We can't know, only surmise. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Fawkes@lemmy.zip 1 point 2 months ago (3 children) Okay, then you're not actually engaging in any degree of coherence. Your ignorance is not wisdom, despite what you seem to have convinced yourself. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] Epp@lemmus.org 1 point 2 months ago (2 children) That's some impressive hubris you've got. So tell me, in your infinite wisdom, from where does sentience arise and what is the smallest organism that is sentient? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Fawkes@lemmy.zip 0 points 2 months ago (1 child) No, I don't think I will. Because I don't believe there is any answer I can give you that won't be merry with more insults and arrogance. I made the claim that sentience cannot exist in a purely mechanistic system, like a wrist watch. Because there is nothing there unexplained, unknown, or more nuanced than gears and springs. The burden of proof lies on you to explain how a wristwatch could have any degree of sentience. And insulting me does nothing but show the emptiness of your claim, and the fragility of your pseudo-wisdom. Denying ALL knowledge by taking a bong rip and saying "But how can we ever really know?" It's not wisdom or humility. It's pretending ignorance is wisdom. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Epp@lemmus.org 1 point 2 months ago You seem to have this backwards. YOU'RE the one making a claim, so the burden of proof is on you. I'm saying it's impossible to know, you are saying you know without a doubt. Prove it. permalink fedilink source parent load more comments (1 reply)
[–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] ThirdConsul@lemmy.zip 4 points 2 months ago (2 children) Them LLMs do not change You Not with agents and chain of thought. Agents can run for hours continuously Those are not the same concepts. The model of LLM remain unchanged. Agents running for hours just modify the prompt they input into an LLM model. I do not care about the rest of discussion, just swoop in to clarify that distinction. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] hirihit640@sh.itjust.works 1 point 2 months ago (1 child) Fair enough. When I say that AI might be sentient, I include systems like "LLM + agent harness", treating the whole system as AI. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Epp@lemmus.org 1 point 2 months ago That's too much for their tiny brains to handle. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] ThirdConsul@lemmy.zip 4 points 2 months ago (2 children) Them LLMs do not change You Not with agents and chain of thought. Agents can run for hours continuously Those are not the same concepts. The model of LLM remain unchanged. Agents running for hours just modify the prompt they input into an LLM model. I do not care about the rest of discussion, just swoop in to clarify that distinction. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] hirihit640@sh.itjust.works 1 point 2 months ago (1 child) Fair enough. When I say that AI might be sentient, I include systems like "LLM + agent harness", treating the whole system as AI. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Epp@lemmus.org 1 point 2 months ago That's too much for their tiny brains to handle. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] hirihit640@sh.itjust.works 1 point 2 months ago (1 child) Fair enough. When I say that AI might be sentient, I include systems like "LLM + agent harness", treating the whole system as AI. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Epp@lemmus.org 1 point 2 months ago That's too much for their tiny brains to handle. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Epp@lemmus.org 1 point 2 months ago That's too much for their tiny brains to handle. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] rayboy@lemmy.world 0 points 2 months ago (20 children) Are we not just prediction systems with more neurons? Now im not saying LLMs are human at all because to be human is to have gone through our exact evolutionary path, but we really are in a lot of ways much more similar than you think. At least the speaking part of our brain is. The argument that LLMs are fixed in time does not contradict consciousness. Say a human was stuck in a time loop and the human is asked the same question every single loop, at the exact same time, in the exact same way, with every single atom being in the exact place. Would their answer change? I would argue no, the same exact neurons would be stimulated every time that would cause the same exact answer every time. We don't even have a solid definition of what is concious. Are insects conscious? Like the fruit fly, we have modeled all of its neural paths and it simplifies down to essentially being a robot that responds to stimuli. What does make humans special is our ability to learn. But what when an LLM trains its self? Is that not learning? I think the question of consciousness is too complex to simply say one way or the other and it is foolish to simply it this way. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 20 child comments replies: [–] brucethemoose@lemmy.world 4 points 2 months ago* (5 children) But what when an LLM trains its self? Thats what I'm saying. They cannot do this, not even close. Even a fruit fly is somewhat adaptive and can respond to novel stimuli, but an LLM effectively cant. There are tiny experimental models closer to a fruit fly than large LLMs now. ...What about future world models with some adaptive learning loop, sampling stripped out, and so on? Yeah! That would be fascinating. Then sentience starts to become more of a question. But thats not what LLMs are. People like Altman and Modi have grossly overexaggerated what current LLM architectures are capable of, they trained the LLMs to reinforce the illusion as much as they can, and they arent to inclined to change it. Hence all the good researchers have fled to research world models, and are saying transformers LLMs are not a viable path forward. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] h0tbeef@lemmy.zip -1 points 2 months ago (4 children) Even in your highly optimistic scenario, the AI wouldn’t even come close to being comparable to actual sentience. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] brucethemoose@lemmy.world 4 points 2 months ago* (3 children) Well, theres a lot of experimentation with actual neural nets mimicing biology (or literally using biological neurons), and I think that could start to raise the spectre. World model research could be a significant component of that. In principle, OP is right; humans are just machines. All I constest is that transformers LLMs are even in the same ballpark, or possibly a path there... they are not. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] h0tbeef@lemmy.zip 1 point 2 months ago* (2 children) Well it sounds like we agree then. I would think you would need actual biological structures to achieve sentience. That’s a lot different than what these people are calling AI tho. Edit: Also, if it is built out of natural biological pieces, at what point does it cease to be “artificial”? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] brucethemoose@lemmy.world 3 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 child) Well biological structures can be replicated mechanically. So at risk of being pedantic, that's not strictly true. I view "artificial" as just a term for conscious, purpose construction, whereas "natural" does not involve any conscious intelligence, as in "naturally occurring in nature." But even that is a spectrum, I guess, with genetic manipulation, BCIs, all sorts of intermediate possibilities. I'd call a constructed, purely biological brain "artificial" because, even if it was grown naturally, it was built with conscious intent. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] rayboy@lemmy.world 2 points 2 months ago Correct, nothing is special about biological consciousness. If these exact functions are replicated mechanically/artificially, the outcomes would be the same. permalink fedilink source parent [–] h0tbeef@lemmy.zip 2 points 2 months ago (13 children) I can’t believe how many pro-AI arguments essentially boil down to “I do not understand words”. We have a very solid and explicit definition of what conscious means: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/conscious#medicalDictionary The best neuroscientists in the world do not even fully understand the complicated intricacies of the workings of the human mind. We do understand 100% exactly how computers work. There is no comparison. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 13 child comments replies: [–] rayboy@lemmy.world 5 points 2 months ago (9 children) I haven't even argued that AI is concious, I have said that we do not understand consciousness enough to define it. You have completely missed the point. This is Dunning-Kruger at its peak. You are vastly oversimplifying things, at what size of brain is an animal considered conscious or capable of thought? Define thought. We don't even have a solid understanding of life, much less thoughts. Yes we have a word definition, no we do not know where the line begins and ends. It is a philosophical question that remains unanswered. This definition is already making so many assumptions and over simplifications. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/thought We understand that the brain is what gives us our cognition, we understand that the brain is made up of chemical and electrical signals. We are not special. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 9 child comments replies: [–] SlimePirate@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 2 months ago This dude is a Dunning-Kruger case study. Simply by the shear overconfidence permalink fedilink source parent [–] h0tbeef@lemmy.zip -2 points 2 months ago (7 children) I’m sorry that you have trouble grasping so many basic concepts. Ironic of you to reference Dunning-Kruger. All animals are conscious as far as I’m aware, though the complexity of their thoughts may vary. They all act of their own volition, computers do not and cannot act of their own volition. You do not have to fully understand every aspect of consciousness in order to recognize that inanimate objects do not have it. “Will” is a component of consciousness, this is commonly understood. Computers are tools, they have no will. Computers calculate, they do not think, these are different operations. I am not oversimplifying things, you are under-thinking things that are already simple (likely due to cognitive offloading). permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 7 child comments replies: [–] rayboy@lemmy.world 5 points 2 months ago (2 children) So your response boils down to "no u," and insulting. I believe we are done here. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] admin@lemmy.my-box.dev 3 points 2 months ago For what it's worth, I thought it was an interesting read until the other person went full ad hominem. permalink fedilink source parent [–] h0tbeef@lemmy.zip -2 points 2 months ago 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 permalink fedilink source parent [–] SlimePirate@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 2 months ago (3 children) The argument basically: "'computers are not sentient, because I say that they are not sentient" permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] admin@lemmy.my-box.dev 4 points 2 months ago Don't forget the dictionary quotes and the personal attacks. permalink fedilink source parent [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Epp@lemmus.org 1 point 2 months ago As if your comprehension, yet your arrogance is stunning because it is massive and is only dwarfed by your propensity for being wrong. permalink fedilink source parent load more comments (1 reply) [–] SlimePirate@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 2 months ago (2 children) Discussing the consciousness of neural networks is NOT being pro-AI. I'd say it's even the opposite, as it displays the danger of such a technology. Most of the words in the definition have multiple interpretations, it is not as easy as you wish it would be. Finally, we do NOT at all know how trained neural networks work. We know how training and inference work. We can read the neurons, but the shear size of weights make it a rather impenetrable black box we have to study, partially, to understand the goals of the emergent sub networks. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] h0tbeef@lemmy.zip -2 points 2 months ago (1 child) 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] SlimePirate@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 2 months ago I am not fearmongering the fact it helps or not AI companies is not relevant here. You are getting off topic. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] brucethemoose@lemmy.world 4 points 2 months ago* (5 children) But what when an LLM trains its self? Thats what I'm saying. They cannot do this, not even close. Even a fruit fly is somewhat adaptive and can respond to novel stimuli, but an LLM effectively cant. There are tiny experimental models closer to a fruit fly than large LLMs now. ...What about future world models with some adaptive learning loop, sampling stripped out, and so on? Yeah! That would be fascinating. Then sentience starts to become more of a question. But thats not what LLMs are. People like Altman and Modi have grossly overexaggerated what current LLM architectures are capable of, they trained the LLMs to reinforce the illusion as much as they can, and they arent to inclined to change it. Hence all the good researchers have fled to research world models, and are saying transformers LLMs are not a viable path forward. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] h0tbeef@lemmy.zip -1 points 2 months ago (4 children) Even in your highly optimistic scenario, the AI wouldn’t even come close to being comparable to actual sentience. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] brucethemoose@lemmy.world 4 points 2 months ago* (3 children) Well, theres a lot of experimentation with actual neural nets mimicing biology (or literally using biological neurons), and I think that could start to raise the spectre. World model research could be a significant component of that. In principle, OP is right; humans are just machines. All I constest is that transformers LLMs are even in the same ballpark, or possibly a path there... they are not. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] h0tbeef@lemmy.zip 1 point 2 months ago* (2 children) Well it sounds like we agree then. I would think you would need actual biological structures to achieve sentience. That’s a lot different than what these people are calling AI tho. Edit: Also, if it is built out of natural biological pieces, at what point does it cease to be “artificial”? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] brucethemoose@lemmy.world 3 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 child) Well biological structures can be replicated mechanically. So at risk of being pedantic, that's not strictly true. I view "artificial" as just a term for conscious, purpose construction, whereas "natural" does not involve any conscious intelligence, as in "naturally occurring in nature." But even that is a spectrum, I guess, with genetic manipulation, BCIs, all sorts of intermediate possibilities. I'd call a constructed, purely biological brain "artificial" because, even if it was grown naturally, it was built with conscious intent. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] rayboy@lemmy.world 2 points 2 months ago Correct, nothing is special about biological consciousness. If these exact functions are replicated mechanically/artificially, the outcomes would be the same. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] h0tbeef@lemmy.zip -1 points 2 months ago (4 children) Even in your highly optimistic scenario, the AI wouldn’t even come close to being comparable to actual sentience. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] brucethemoose@lemmy.world 4 points 2 months ago* (3 children) Well, theres a lot of experimentation with actual neural nets mimicing biology (or literally using biological neurons), and I think that could start to raise the spectre. World model research could be a significant component of that. In principle, OP is right; humans are just machines. All I constest is that transformers LLMs are even in the same ballpark, or possibly a path there... they are not. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] h0tbeef@lemmy.zip 1 point 2 months ago* (2 children) Well it sounds like we agree then. I would think you would need actual biological structures to achieve sentience. That’s a lot different than what these people are calling AI tho. Edit: Also, if it is built out of natural biological pieces, at what point does it cease to be “artificial”? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] brucethemoose@lemmy.world 3 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 child) Well biological structures can be replicated mechanically. So at risk of being pedantic, that's not strictly true. I view "artificial" as just a term for conscious, purpose construction, whereas "natural" does not involve any conscious intelligence, as in "naturally occurring in nature." But even that is a spectrum, I guess, with genetic manipulation, BCIs, all sorts of intermediate possibilities. I'd call a constructed, purely biological brain "artificial" because, even if it was grown naturally, it was built with conscious intent. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] rayboy@lemmy.world 2 points 2 months ago Correct, nothing is special about biological consciousness. If these exact functions are replicated mechanically/artificially, the outcomes would be the same. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] brucethemoose@lemmy.world 4 points 2 months ago* (3 children) Well, theres a lot of experimentation with actual neural nets mimicing biology (or literally using biological neurons), and I think that could start to raise the spectre. World model research could be a significant component of that. In principle, OP is right; humans are just machines. All I constest is that transformers LLMs are even in the same ballpark, or possibly a path there... they are not. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] h0tbeef@lemmy.zip 1 point 2 months ago* (2 children) Well it sounds like we agree then. I would think you would need actual biological structures to achieve sentience. That’s a lot different than what these people are calling AI tho. Edit: Also, if it is built out of natural biological pieces, at what point does it cease to be “artificial”? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] brucethemoose@lemmy.world 3 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 child) Well biological structures can be replicated mechanically. So at risk of being pedantic, that's not strictly true. I view "artificial" as just a term for conscious, purpose construction, whereas "natural" does not involve any conscious intelligence, as in "naturally occurring in nature." But even that is a spectrum, I guess, with genetic manipulation, BCIs, all sorts of intermediate possibilities. I'd call a constructed, purely biological brain "artificial" because, even if it was grown naturally, it was built with conscious intent. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] rayboy@lemmy.world 2 points 2 months ago Correct, nothing is special about biological consciousness. If these exact functions are replicated mechanically/artificially, the outcomes would be the same. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] h0tbeef@lemmy.zip 1 point 2 months ago* (2 children) Well it sounds like we agree then. I would think you would need actual biological structures to achieve sentience. That’s a lot different than what these people are calling AI tho. Edit: Also, if it is built out of natural biological pieces, at what point does it cease to be “artificial”? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] brucethemoose@lemmy.world 3 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 child) Well biological structures can be replicated mechanically. So at risk of being pedantic, that's not strictly true. I view "artificial" as just a term for conscious, purpose construction, whereas "natural" does not involve any conscious intelligence, as in "naturally occurring in nature." But even that is a spectrum, I guess, with genetic manipulation, BCIs, all sorts of intermediate possibilities. I'd call a constructed, purely biological brain "artificial" because, even if it was grown naturally, it was built with conscious intent. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] rayboy@lemmy.world 2 points 2 months ago Correct, nothing is special about biological consciousness. If these exact functions are replicated mechanically/artificially, the outcomes would be the same. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] brucethemoose@lemmy.world 3 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 child) Well biological structures can be replicated mechanically. So at risk of being pedantic, that's not strictly true. I view "artificial" as just a term for conscious, purpose construction, whereas "natural" does not involve any conscious intelligence, as in "naturally occurring in nature." But even that is a spectrum, I guess, with genetic manipulation, BCIs, all sorts of intermediate possibilities. I'd call a constructed, purely biological brain "artificial" because, even if it was grown naturally, it was built with conscious intent. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] rayboy@lemmy.world 2 points 2 months ago Correct, nothing is special about biological consciousness. If these exact functions are replicated mechanically/artificially, the outcomes would be the same. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] rayboy@lemmy.world 2 points 2 months ago Correct, nothing is special about biological consciousness. If these exact functions are replicated mechanically/artificially, the outcomes would be the same. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] h0tbeef@lemmy.zip 2 points 2 months ago (13 children) I can’t believe how many pro-AI arguments essentially boil down to “I do not understand words”. We have a very solid and explicit definition of what conscious means: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/conscious#medicalDictionary The best neuroscientists in the world do not even fully understand the complicated intricacies of the workings of the human mind. We do understand 100% exactly how computers work. There is no comparison. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 13 child comments replies: [–] rayboy@lemmy.world 5 points 2 months ago (9 children) I haven't even argued that AI is concious, I have said that we do not understand consciousness enough to define it. You have completely missed the point. This is Dunning-Kruger at its peak. You are vastly oversimplifying things, at what size of brain is an animal considered conscious or capable of thought? Define thought. We don't even have a solid understanding of life, much less thoughts. Yes we have a word definition, no we do not know where the line begins and ends. It is a philosophical question that remains unanswered. This definition is already making so many assumptions and over simplifications. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/thought We understand that the brain is what gives us our cognition, we understand that the brain is made up of chemical and electrical signals. We are not special. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 9 child comments replies: [–] SlimePirate@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 2 months ago This dude is a Dunning-Kruger case study. Simply by the shear overconfidence permalink fedilink source parent [–] h0tbeef@lemmy.zip -2 points 2 months ago (7 children) I’m sorry that you have trouble grasping so many basic concepts. Ironic of you to reference Dunning-Kruger. All animals are conscious as far as I’m aware, though the complexity of their thoughts may vary. They all act of their own volition, computers do not and cannot act of their own volition. You do not have to fully understand every aspect of consciousness in order to recognize that inanimate objects do not have it. “Will” is a component of consciousness, this is commonly understood. Computers are tools, they have no will. Computers calculate, they do not think, these are different operations. I am not oversimplifying things, you are under-thinking things that are already simple (likely due to cognitive offloading). permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 7 child comments replies: [–] rayboy@lemmy.world 5 points 2 months ago (2 children) So your response boils down to "no u," and insulting. I believe we are done here. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] admin@lemmy.my-box.dev 3 points 2 months ago For what it's worth, I thought it was an interesting read until the other person went full ad hominem. permalink fedilink source parent [–] h0tbeef@lemmy.zip -2 points 2 months ago 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 permalink fedilink source parent [–] SlimePirate@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 2 months ago (3 children) The argument basically: "'computers are not sentient, because I say that they are not sentient" permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] admin@lemmy.my-box.dev 4 points 2 months ago Don't forget the dictionary quotes and the personal attacks. permalink fedilink source parent [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Epp@lemmus.org 1 point 2 months ago As if your comprehension, yet your arrogance is stunning because it is massive and is only dwarfed by your propensity for being wrong. permalink fedilink source parent load more comments (1 reply) [–] SlimePirate@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 2 months ago (2 children) Discussing the consciousness of neural networks is NOT being pro-AI. I'd say it's even the opposite, as it displays the danger of such a technology. Most of the words in the definition have multiple interpretations, it is not as easy as you wish it would be. Finally, we do NOT at all know how trained neural networks work. We know how training and inference work. We can read the neurons, but the shear size of weights make it a rather impenetrable black box we have to study, partially, to understand the goals of the emergent sub networks. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] h0tbeef@lemmy.zip -2 points 2 months ago (1 child) 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] SlimePirate@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 2 months ago I am not fearmongering the fact it helps or not AI companies is not relevant here. You are getting off topic. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] rayboy@lemmy.world 5 points 2 months ago (9 children) I haven't even argued that AI is concious, I have said that we do not understand consciousness enough to define it. You have completely missed the point. This is Dunning-Kruger at its peak. You are vastly oversimplifying things, at what size of brain is an animal considered conscious or capable of thought? Define thought. We don't even have a solid understanding of life, much less thoughts. Yes we have a word definition, no we do not know where the line begins and ends. It is a philosophical question that remains unanswered. This definition is already making so many assumptions and over simplifications. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/thought We understand that the brain is what gives us our cognition, we understand that the brain is made up of chemical and electrical signals. We are not special. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 9 child comments replies: [–] SlimePirate@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 2 months ago This dude is a Dunning-Kruger case study. Simply by the shear overconfidence permalink fedilink source parent [–] h0tbeef@lemmy.zip -2 points 2 months ago (7 children) I’m sorry that you have trouble grasping so many basic concepts. Ironic of you to reference Dunning-Kruger. All animals are conscious as far as I’m aware, though the complexity of their thoughts may vary. They all act of their own volition, computers do not and cannot act of their own volition. You do not have to fully understand every aspect of consciousness in order to recognize that inanimate objects do not have it. “Will” is a component of consciousness, this is commonly understood. Computers are tools, they have no will. Computers calculate, they do not think, these are different operations. I am not oversimplifying things, you are under-thinking things that are already simple (likely due to cognitive offloading). permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 7 child comments replies: [–] rayboy@lemmy.world 5 points 2 months ago (2 children) So your response boils down to "no u," and insulting. I believe we are done here. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] admin@lemmy.my-box.dev 3 points 2 months ago For what it's worth, I thought it was an interesting read until the other person went full ad hominem. permalink fedilink source parent [–] h0tbeef@lemmy.zip -2 points 2 months ago 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 permalink fedilink source parent [–] SlimePirate@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 2 months ago (3 children) The argument basically: "'computers are not sentient, because I say that they are not sentient" permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] admin@lemmy.my-box.dev 4 points 2 months ago Don't forget the dictionary quotes and the personal attacks. permalink fedilink source parent [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Epp@lemmus.org 1 point 2 months ago As if your comprehension, yet your arrogance is stunning because it is massive and is only dwarfed by your propensity for being wrong. permalink fedilink source parent load more comments (1 reply)
[–] SlimePirate@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 2 months ago This dude is a Dunning-Kruger case study. Simply by the shear overconfidence permalink fedilink source parent
[–] h0tbeef@lemmy.zip -2 points 2 months ago (7 children) I’m sorry that you have trouble grasping so many basic concepts. Ironic of you to reference Dunning-Kruger. All animals are conscious as far as I’m aware, though the complexity of their thoughts may vary. They all act of their own volition, computers do not and cannot act of their own volition. You do not have to fully understand every aspect of consciousness in order to recognize that inanimate objects do not have it. “Will” is a component of consciousness, this is commonly understood. Computers are tools, they have no will. Computers calculate, they do not think, these are different operations. I am not oversimplifying things, you are under-thinking things that are already simple (likely due to cognitive offloading). permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 7 child comments replies: [–] rayboy@lemmy.world 5 points 2 months ago (2 children) So your response boils down to "no u," and insulting. I believe we are done here. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] admin@lemmy.my-box.dev 3 points 2 months ago For what it's worth, I thought it was an interesting read until the other person went full ad hominem. permalink fedilink source parent [–] h0tbeef@lemmy.zip -2 points 2 months ago 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 permalink fedilink source parent [–] SlimePirate@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 2 months ago (3 children) The argument basically: "'computers are not sentient, because I say that they are not sentient" permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] admin@lemmy.my-box.dev 4 points 2 months ago Don't forget the dictionary quotes and the personal attacks. permalink fedilink source parent [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Epp@lemmus.org 1 point 2 months ago As if your comprehension, yet your arrogance is stunning because it is massive and is only dwarfed by your propensity for being wrong. permalink fedilink source parent load more comments (1 reply)
[–] rayboy@lemmy.world 5 points 2 months ago (2 children) So your response boils down to "no u," and insulting. I believe we are done here. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] admin@lemmy.my-box.dev 3 points 2 months ago For what it's worth, I thought it was an interesting read until the other person went full ad hominem. permalink fedilink source parent [–] h0tbeef@lemmy.zip -2 points 2 months ago 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 permalink fedilink source parent
[–] admin@lemmy.my-box.dev 3 points 2 months ago For what it's worth, I thought it was an interesting read until the other person went full ad hominem. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] h0tbeef@lemmy.zip -2 points 2 months ago 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 permalink fedilink source parent
[–] SlimePirate@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 2 months ago (3 children) The argument basically: "'computers are not sentient, because I say that they are not sentient" permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] admin@lemmy.my-box.dev 4 points 2 months ago Don't forget the dictionary quotes and the personal attacks. permalink fedilink source parent [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Epp@lemmus.org 1 point 2 months ago As if your comprehension, yet your arrogance is stunning because it is massive and is only dwarfed by your propensity for being wrong. permalink fedilink source parent load more comments (1 reply)
[–] admin@lemmy.my-box.dev 4 points 2 months ago Don't forget the dictionary quotes and the personal attacks. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Epp@lemmus.org 1 point 2 months ago As if your comprehension, yet your arrogance is stunning because it is massive and is only dwarfed by your propensity for being wrong. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Epp@lemmus.org 1 point 2 months ago As if your comprehension, yet your arrogance is stunning because it is massive and is only dwarfed by your propensity for being wrong. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] SlimePirate@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 2 months ago (2 children) Discussing the consciousness of neural networks is NOT being pro-AI. I'd say it's even the opposite, as it displays the danger of such a technology. Most of the words in the definition have multiple interpretations, it is not as easy as you wish it would be. Finally, we do NOT at all know how trained neural networks work. We know how training and inference work. We can read the neurons, but the shear size of weights make it a rather impenetrable black box we have to study, partially, to understand the goals of the emergent sub networks. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] h0tbeef@lemmy.zip -2 points 2 months ago (1 child) 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] SlimePirate@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 2 months ago I am not fearmongering the fact it helps or not AI companies is not relevant here. You are getting off topic. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] h0tbeef@lemmy.zip -2 points 2 months ago (1 child) 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] SlimePirate@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 2 months ago I am not fearmongering the fact it helps or not AI companies is not relevant here. You are getting off topic. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] SlimePirate@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 2 months ago I am not fearmongering the fact it helps or not AI companies is not relevant here. You are getting off topic. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] SlimePirate@lemmy.dbzer0.com -5 points 2 months ago (10 children) The fact they are trained to complete sentences and are thus word predicting models only tells us vaguely how they work. It does not tell us anything about their sentience. The sentience, if there is, comes from the emergent reasoning that develops in the massive neural network to offer actual good predictions: the more you think, the better the predictions. For example, models trained to produce textual board games predictions can be sounded to show they developed subnetworks corresponding to an inner representation of the states of the game. Models trained to produce images have emergent subnetworks on depth-maps, contours and lighting. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 10 child comments replies: [–] Fawkes@lemmy.zip 4 points 2 months ago (9 children) Are cells sentient? Bacteria, fungi, etc. Do you think they have any degree of interiority, like how simple animals do? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 9 child comments replies: [–] Epp@lemmus.org 1 point 2 months ago (8 children) Exactly. It's not so cut and dry. Are they? You can never know until you experience their existence. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 8 child comments replies: [–] Fawkes@lemmy.zip 1 point 2 months ago (7 children) Lol no. Actually cells are demonstrably NOT sentient. They have no capacity for choice. No capacity for emotion or experience. They are literally molecular machinery. And we(scientists) understand that machinery to a shocking degree. If you think cells have any degree of sentience, then you must make a similar argument for advanced clockwork machines. Not robots, pure wind-up clockwork automata. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 7 child comments replies: [–] Epp@lemmus.org 1 point 2 months ago (6 children) Ah, so you've experienced each of their existences? Fascinating. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] Fawkes@lemmy.zip 1 point 2 months ago (5 children) Please explain to me how a wristwatch is sentient or conscious. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] Epp@lemmus.org 1 point 2 months ago (4 children) I can't, since I've never been a wristwatch. Maybe they're not, or maybe they are through a mechanism for which science has no current explanation. We can't know, only surmise. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Fawkes@lemmy.zip 1 point 2 months ago (3 children) Okay, then you're not actually engaging in any degree of coherence. Your ignorance is not wisdom, despite what you seem to have convinced yourself. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] Epp@lemmus.org 1 point 2 months ago (2 children) That's some impressive hubris you've got. So tell me, in your infinite wisdom, from where does sentience arise and what is the smallest organism that is sentient? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Fawkes@lemmy.zip 0 points 2 months ago (1 child) No, I don't think I will. Because I don't believe there is any answer I can give you that won't be merry with more insults and arrogance. I made the claim that sentience cannot exist in a purely mechanistic system, like a wrist watch. Because there is nothing there unexplained, unknown, or more nuanced than gears and springs. The burden of proof lies on you to explain how a wristwatch could have any degree of sentience. And insulting me does nothing but show the emptiness of your claim, and the fragility of your pseudo-wisdom. Denying ALL knowledge by taking a bong rip and saying "But how can we ever really know?" It's not wisdom or humility. It's pretending ignorance is wisdom. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Epp@lemmus.org 1 point 2 months ago You seem to have this backwards. YOU'RE the one making a claim, so the burden of proof is on you. I'm saying it's impossible to know, you are saying you know without a doubt. Prove it. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Fawkes@lemmy.zip 4 points 2 months ago (9 children) Are cells sentient? Bacteria, fungi, etc. Do you think they have any degree of interiority, like how simple animals do? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 9 child comments replies: [–] Epp@lemmus.org 1 point 2 months ago (8 children) Exactly. It's not so cut and dry. Are they? You can never know until you experience their existence. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 8 child comments replies: [–] Fawkes@lemmy.zip 1 point 2 months ago (7 children) Lol no. Actually cells are demonstrably NOT sentient. They have no capacity for choice. No capacity for emotion or experience. They are literally molecular machinery. And we(scientists) understand that machinery to a shocking degree. If you think cells have any degree of sentience, then you must make a similar argument for advanced clockwork machines. Not robots, pure wind-up clockwork automata. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 7 child comments replies: [–] Epp@lemmus.org 1 point 2 months ago (6 children) Ah, so you've experienced each of their existences? Fascinating. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] Fawkes@lemmy.zip 1 point 2 months ago (5 children) Please explain to me how a wristwatch is sentient or conscious. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] Epp@lemmus.org 1 point 2 months ago (4 children) I can't, since I've never been a wristwatch. Maybe they're not, or maybe they are through a mechanism for which science has no current explanation. We can't know, only surmise. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Fawkes@lemmy.zip 1 point 2 months ago (3 children) Okay, then you're not actually engaging in any degree of coherence. Your ignorance is not wisdom, despite what you seem to have convinced yourself. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] Epp@lemmus.org 1 point 2 months ago (2 children) That's some impressive hubris you've got. So tell me, in your infinite wisdom, from where does sentience arise and what is the smallest organism that is sentient? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Fawkes@lemmy.zip 0 points 2 months ago (1 child) No, I don't think I will. Because I don't believe there is any answer I can give you that won't be merry with more insults and arrogance. I made the claim that sentience cannot exist in a purely mechanistic system, like a wrist watch. Because there is nothing there unexplained, unknown, or more nuanced than gears and springs. The burden of proof lies on you to explain how a wristwatch could have any degree of sentience. And insulting me does nothing but show the emptiness of your claim, and the fragility of your pseudo-wisdom. Denying ALL knowledge by taking a bong rip and saying "But how can we ever really know?" It's not wisdom or humility. It's pretending ignorance is wisdom. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Epp@lemmus.org 1 point 2 months ago You seem to have this backwards. YOU'RE the one making a claim, so the burden of proof is on you. I'm saying it's impossible to know, you are saying you know without a doubt. Prove it. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Epp@lemmus.org 1 point 2 months ago (8 children) Exactly. It's not so cut and dry. Are they? You can never know until you experience their existence. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 8 child comments replies: [–] Fawkes@lemmy.zip 1 point 2 months ago (7 children) Lol no. Actually cells are demonstrably NOT sentient. They have no capacity for choice. No capacity for emotion or experience. They are literally molecular machinery. And we(scientists) understand that machinery to a shocking degree. If you think cells have any degree of sentience, then you must make a similar argument for advanced clockwork machines. Not robots, pure wind-up clockwork automata. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 7 child comments replies: [–] Epp@lemmus.org 1 point 2 months ago (6 children) Ah, so you've experienced each of their existences? Fascinating. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] Fawkes@lemmy.zip 1 point 2 months ago (5 children) Please explain to me how a wristwatch is sentient or conscious. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] Epp@lemmus.org 1 point 2 months ago (4 children) I can't, since I've never been a wristwatch. Maybe they're not, or maybe they are through a mechanism for which science has no current explanation. We can't know, only surmise. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Fawkes@lemmy.zip 1 point 2 months ago (3 children) Okay, then you're not actually engaging in any degree of coherence. Your ignorance is not wisdom, despite what you seem to have convinced yourself. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] Epp@lemmus.org 1 point 2 months ago (2 children) That's some impressive hubris you've got. So tell me, in your infinite wisdom, from where does sentience arise and what is the smallest organism that is sentient? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Fawkes@lemmy.zip 0 points 2 months ago (1 child) No, I don't think I will. Because I don't believe there is any answer I can give you that won't be merry with more insults and arrogance. I made the claim that sentience cannot exist in a purely mechanistic system, like a wrist watch. Because there is nothing there unexplained, unknown, or more nuanced than gears and springs. The burden of proof lies on you to explain how a wristwatch could have any degree of sentience. And insulting me does nothing but show the emptiness of your claim, and the fragility of your pseudo-wisdom. Denying ALL knowledge by taking a bong rip and saying "But how can we ever really know?" It's not wisdom or humility. It's pretending ignorance is wisdom. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Epp@lemmus.org 1 point 2 months ago You seem to have this backwards. YOU'RE the one making a claim, so the burden of proof is on you. I'm saying it's impossible to know, you are saying you know without a doubt. Prove it. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Fawkes@lemmy.zip 1 point 2 months ago (7 children) Lol no. Actually cells are demonstrably NOT sentient. They have no capacity for choice. No capacity for emotion or experience. They are literally molecular machinery. And we(scientists) understand that machinery to a shocking degree. If you think cells have any degree of sentience, then you must make a similar argument for advanced clockwork machines. Not robots, pure wind-up clockwork automata. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 7 child comments replies: [–] Epp@lemmus.org 1 point 2 months ago (6 children) Ah, so you've experienced each of their existences? Fascinating. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] Fawkes@lemmy.zip 1 point 2 months ago (5 children) Please explain to me how a wristwatch is sentient or conscious. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] Epp@lemmus.org 1 point 2 months ago (4 children) I can't, since I've never been a wristwatch. Maybe they're not, or maybe they are through a mechanism for which science has no current explanation. We can't know, only surmise. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Fawkes@lemmy.zip 1 point 2 months ago (3 children) Okay, then you're not actually engaging in any degree of coherence. Your ignorance is not wisdom, despite what you seem to have convinced yourself. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] Epp@lemmus.org 1 point 2 months ago (2 children) That's some impressive hubris you've got. So tell me, in your infinite wisdom, from where does sentience arise and what is the smallest organism that is sentient? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Fawkes@lemmy.zip 0 points 2 months ago (1 child) No, I don't think I will. Because I don't believe there is any answer I can give you that won't be merry with more insults and arrogance. I made the claim that sentience cannot exist in a purely mechanistic system, like a wrist watch. Because there is nothing there unexplained, unknown, or more nuanced than gears and springs. The burden of proof lies on you to explain how a wristwatch could have any degree of sentience. And insulting me does nothing but show the emptiness of your claim, and the fragility of your pseudo-wisdom. Denying ALL knowledge by taking a bong rip and saying "But how can we ever really know?" It's not wisdom or humility. It's pretending ignorance is wisdom. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Epp@lemmus.org 1 point 2 months ago You seem to have this backwards. YOU'RE the one making a claim, so the burden of proof is on you. I'm saying it's impossible to know, you are saying you know without a doubt. Prove it. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Epp@lemmus.org 1 point 2 months ago (6 children) Ah, so you've experienced each of their existences? Fascinating. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] Fawkes@lemmy.zip 1 point 2 months ago (5 children) Please explain to me how a wristwatch is sentient or conscious. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] Epp@lemmus.org 1 point 2 months ago (4 children) I can't, since I've never been a wristwatch. Maybe they're not, or maybe they are through a mechanism for which science has no current explanation. We can't know, only surmise. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Fawkes@lemmy.zip 1 point 2 months ago (3 children) Okay, then you're not actually engaging in any degree of coherence. Your ignorance is not wisdom, despite what you seem to have convinced yourself. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] Epp@lemmus.org 1 point 2 months ago (2 children) That's some impressive hubris you've got. So tell me, in your infinite wisdom, from where does sentience arise and what is the smallest organism that is sentient? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Fawkes@lemmy.zip 0 points 2 months ago (1 child) No, I don't think I will. Because I don't believe there is any answer I can give you that won't be merry with more insults and arrogance. I made the claim that sentience cannot exist in a purely mechanistic system, like a wrist watch. Because there is nothing there unexplained, unknown, or more nuanced than gears and springs. The burden of proof lies on you to explain how a wristwatch could have any degree of sentience. And insulting me does nothing but show the emptiness of your claim, and the fragility of your pseudo-wisdom. Denying ALL knowledge by taking a bong rip and saying "But how can we ever really know?" It's not wisdom or humility. It's pretending ignorance is wisdom. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Epp@lemmus.org 1 point 2 months ago You seem to have this backwards. YOU'RE the one making a claim, so the burden of proof is on you. I'm saying it's impossible to know, you are saying you know without a doubt. Prove it. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Fawkes@lemmy.zip 1 point 2 months ago (5 children) Please explain to me how a wristwatch is sentient or conscious. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] Epp@lemmus.org 1 point 2 months ago (4 children) I can't, since I've never been a wristwatch. Maybe they're not, or maybe they are through a mechanism for which science has no current explanation. We can't know, only surmise. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Fawkes@lemmy.zip 1 point 2 months ago (3 children) Okay, then you're not actually engaging in any degree of coherence. Your ignorance is not wisdom, despite what you seem to have convinced yourself. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] Epp@lemmus.org 1 point 2 months ago (2 children) That's some impressive hubris you've got. So tell me, in your infinite wisdom, from where does sentience arise and what is the smallest organism that is sentient? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Fawkes@lemmy.zip 0 points 2 months ago (1 child) No, I don't think I will. Because I don't believe there is any answer I can give you that won't be merry with more insults and arrogance. I made the claim that sentience cannot exist in a purely mechanistic system, like a wrist watch. Because there is nothing there unexplained, unknown, or more nuanced than gears and springs. The burden of proof lies on you to explain how a wristwatch could have any degree of sentience. And insulting me does nothing but show the emptiness of your claim, and the fragility of your pseudo-wisdom. Denying ALL knowledge by taking a bong rip and saying "But how can we ever really know?" It's not wisdom or humility. It's pretending ignorance is wisdom. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Epp@lemmus.org 1 point 2 months ago You seem to have this backwards. YOU'RE the one making a claim, so the burden of proof is on you. I'm saying it's impossible to know, you are saying you know without a doubt. Prove it. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Epp@lemmus.org 1 point 2 months ago (4 children) I can't, since I've never been a wristwatch. Maybe they're not, or maybe they are through a mechanism for which science has no current explanation. We can't know, only surmise. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Fawkes@lemmy.zip 1 point 2 months ago (3 children) Okay, then you're not actually engaging in any degree of coherence. Your ignorance is not wisdom, despite what you seem to have convinced yourself. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] Epp@lemmus.org 1 point 2 months ago (2 children) That's some impressive hubris you've got. So tell me, in your infinite wisdom, from where does sentience arise and what is the smallest organism that is sentient? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Fawkes@lemmy.zip 0 points 2 months ago (1 child) No, I don't think I will. Because I don't believe there is any answer I can give you that won't be merry with more insults and arrogance. I made the claim that sentience cannot exist in a purely mechanistic system, like a wrist watch. Because there is nothing there unexplained, unknown, or more nuanced than gears and springs. The burden of proof lies on you to explain how a wristwatch could have any degree of sentience. And insulting me does nothing but show the emptiness of your claim, and the fragility of your pseudo-wisdom. Denying ALL knowledge by taking a bong rip and saying "But how can we ever really know?" It's not wisdom or humility. It's pretending ignorance is wisdom. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Epp@lemmus.org 1 point 2 months ago You seem to have this backwards. YOU'RE the one making a claim, so the burden of proof is on you. I'm saying it's impossible to know, you are saying you know without a doubt. Prove it. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Fawkes@lemmy.zip 1 point 2 months ago (3 children) Okay, then you're not actually engaging in any degree of coherence. Your ignorance is not wisdom, despite what you seem to have convinced yourself. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] Epp@lemmus.org 1 point 2 months ago (2 children) That's some impressive hubris you've got. So tell me, in your infinite wisdom, from where does sentience arise and what is the smallest organism that is sentient? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Fawkes@lemmy.zip 0 points 2 months ago (1 child) No, I don't think I will. Because I don't believe there is any answer I can give you that won't be merry with more insults and arrogance. I made the claim that sentience cannot exist in a purely mechanistic system, like a wrist watch. Because there is nothing there unexplained, unknown, or more nuanced than gears and springs. The burden of proof lies on you to explain how a wristwatch could have any degree of sentience. And insulting me does nothing but show the emptiness of your claim, and the fragility of your pseudo-wisdom. Denying ALL knowledge by taking a bong rip and saying "But how can we ever really know?" It's not wisdom or humility. It's pretending ignorance is wisdom. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Epp@lemmus.org 1 point 2 months ago You seem to have this backwards. YOU'RE the one making a claim, so the burden of proof is on you. I'm saying it's impossible to know, you are saying you know without a doubt. Prove it. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Epp@lemmus.org 1 point 2 months ago (2 children) That's some impressive hubris you've got. So tell me, in your infinite wisdom, from where does sentience arise and what is the smallest organism that is sentient? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Fawkes@lemmy.zip 0 points 2 months ago (1 child) No, I don't think I will. Because I don't believe there is any answer I can give you that won't be merry with more insults and arrogance. I made the claim that sentience cannot exist in a purely mechanistic system, like a wrist watch. Because there is nothing there unexplained, unknown, or more nuanced than gears and springs. The burden of proof lies on you to explain how a wristwatch could have any degree of sentience. And insulting me does nothing but show the emptiness of your claim, and the fragility of your pseudo-wisdom. Denying ALL knowledge by taking a bong rip and saying "But how can we ever really know?" It's not wisdom or humility. It's pretending ignorance is wisdom. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Epp@lemmus.org 1 point 2 months ago You seem to have this backwards. YOU'RE the one making a claim, so the burden of proof is on you. I'm saying it's impossible to know, you are saying you know without a doubt. Prove it. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Fawkes@lemmy.zip 0 points 2 months ago (1 child) No, I don't think I will. Because I don't believe there is any answer I can give you that won't be merry with more insults and arrogance. I made the claim that sentience cannot exist in a purely mechanistic system, like a wrist watch. Because there is nothing there unexplained, unknown, or more nuanced than gears and springs. The burden of proof lies on you to explain how a wristwatch could have any degree of sentience. And insulting me does nothing but show the emptiness of your claim, and the fragility of your pseudo-wisdom. Denying ALL knowledge by taking a bong rip and saying "But how can we ever really know?" It's not wisdom or humility. It's pretending ignorance is wisdom. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Epp@lemmus.org 1 point 2 months ago You seem to have this backwards. YOU'RE the one making a claim, so the burden of proof is on you. I'm saying it's impossible to know, you are saying you know without a doubt. Prove it. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Epp@lemmus.org 1 point 2 months ago You seem to have this backwards. YOU'RE the one making a claim, so the burden of proof is on you. I'm saying it's impossible to know, you are saying you know without a doubt. Prove it. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Untamed_Star@lemmy.blahaj.zone 4 points 2 months ago if a machine looks and acts like a duck it is still not a duck. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] h0tbeef@lemmy.zip 0 points 2 months ago (17 children) Do you not interact with any other actual humans? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 17 child comments replies: [–] hirihit640@sh.itjust.works -2 points 2 months ago (16 children) I do, and I can say that the conversations with AI (especially using tools like character.ai) are 99% the same permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 16 child comments replies: [–] kadu@scribe.disroot.org 2 points 2 months ago (1 child) I come back to Lemmy after 6 months and immediately read this. So that was a mistake. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] hirihit640@sh.itjust.works 2 points 2 months ago Some humans think humans are so special. "Sentient" and "conscious". Now I don't claim that computers are special, I think they are just as non-special as humans. permalink fedilink source parent [–] h0tbeef@lemmy.zip 1 point 2 months ago (13 children) 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 permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 13 child comments replies: [–] hirihit640@sh.itjust.works -1 points 2 months ago (12 children) Sounds like you haven't tried modern AI yet. I could train an AI on your comment history and copy you, and nobody would be able to tell the difference permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 12 child comments replies: [–] Epp@lemmus.org 3 points 2 months ago* (7 children) I've tried. They're adamant against AI here. It's not even worth the discussion. There's an army of belligerent people here who have made up their minds that LLM are "stochastic parrots" and they're convinced they understand exactly how they work. No one can tell them otherwise. Doesn't even matter your credentials. They're the experts here. If you argue, they'll only belittle you. Save yourself the frustration and heartache; just silently pity them. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 7 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Epp@lemmus.org 1 point 2 months ago* (5 children) Uh huh... That makes you specifically qualified on the topic? Far more than myself, certainly, with my MSc in Machine Learning. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Epp@lemmus.org 1 point 2 months ago (3 children) Surely you know that under the hood we're all just algorithms? Electrical impulses determining what we're going to do before our own consciousness are aware of the impending decision. You make the mistake of ascribing more importance to the "1s and 0s" of neuron activity we ourselves encompass, and imagining that a different arrangement of that exact same activity could not possibly yield a similar outcome. It's like saying plants can't be alive because they don't have brains. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Epp@lemmus.org 1 point 2 months ago (1 child) Sorry, 'h0tbeef', I forgot that only you understand consciousness and only you know how it is defined. So only you know what qualifies, because of your superior understanding that no one else can possibly hope to have. Of course, only humans are capable of being conscious, you're absolutely right as always. You're so clever, you should go reward yourself with a cookie. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] h0tbeef@lemmy.zip 0 points 2 months ago Oh, have we reached the stage of the debate where you project your insecurities onto me in a desperate bid to avoid conceding your palpably untenable position? How dignified. If you wish to gain more knowledge and understanding, I would suggest you stop outsourcing your cognition to a chatbot. permalink fedilink source parent load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (1 reply) [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] hirihit640@sh.itjust.works 1 point 2 months ago* (2 children) You overestimate most people. Here's a study from 2025 https://arxiv.org/html/2211.13087 Among AI models, Blenderbot stood out: in AI-AI conversations, it was judged human 67% of the times - more often than actual human-human conversations. In human-AI conversations, human participants were labeled as humans 68% of the time, and AIs were classified as AI 56% of the time. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] h0tbeef@lemmy.zip 1 point 2 months ago* (1 child) 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] hirihit640@sh.itjust.works 1 point 2 months ago Something I should point out just in case is that 50% success rate is the same as random chance. So when the study says: AIs were classified as AI 56% of the time. That really means that humans could not tell the difference between AI and human, since their success rate was almost the same as random chance. 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. Sure, and that task was "imitate humans", and these computers seem remarkably good at it. That's what I'm saying. I don't care that these AI work differently than humans. They can imitate humans so well that humans can't tell the difference. permalink fedilink source parent load more comments (1 reply)
[–] hirihit640@sh.itjust.works -2 points 2 months ago (16 children) I do, and I can say that the conversations with AI (especially using tools like character.ai) are 99% the same permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 16 child comments replies: [–] kadu@scribe.disroot.org 2 points 2 months ago (1 child) I come back to Lemmy after 6 months and immediately read this. So that was a mistake. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] hirihit640@sh.itjust.works 2 points 2 months ago Some humans think humans are so special. "Sentient" and "conscious". Now I don't claim that computers are special, I think they are just as non-special as humans. permalink fedilink source parent [–] h0tbeef@lemmy.zip 1 point 2 months ago (13 children) 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 permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 13 child comments replies: [–] hirihit640@sh.itjust.works -1 points 2 months ago (12 children) Sounds like you haven't tried modern AI yet. I could train an AI on your comment history and copy you, and nobody would be able to tell the difference permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 12 child comments replies: [–] Epp@lemmus.org 3 points 2 months ago* (7 children) I've tried. They're adamant against AI here. It's not even worth the discussion. There's an army of belligerent people here who have made up their minds that LLM are "stochastic parrots" and they're convinced they understand exactly how they work. No one can tell them otherwise. Doesn't even matter your credentials. They're the experts here. If you argue, they'll only belittle you. Save yourself the frustration and heartache; just silently pity them. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 7 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Epp@lemmus.org 1 point 2 months ago* (5 children) Uh huh... That makes you specifically qualified on the topic? Far more than myself, certainly, with my MSc in Machine Learning. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Epp@lemmus.org 1 point 2 months ago (3 children) Surely you know that under the hood we're all just algorithms? Electrical impulses determining what we're going to do before our own consciousness are aware of the impending decision. You make the mistake of ascribing more importance to the "1s and 0s" of neuron activity we ourselves encompass, and imagining that a different arrangement of that exact same activity could not possibly yield a similar outcome. It's like saying plants can't be alive because they don't have brains. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Epp@lemmus.org 1 point 2 months ago (1 child) Sorry, 'h0tbeef', I forgot that only you understand consciousness and only you know how it is defined. So only you know what qualifies, because of your superior understanding that no one else can possibly hope to have. Of course, only humans are capable of being conscious, you're absolutely right as always. You're so clever, you should go reward yourself with a cookie. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] h0tbeef@lemmy.zip 0 points 2 months ago Oh, have we reached the stage of the debate where you project your insecurities onto me in a desperate bid to avoid conceding your palpably untenable position? How dignified. If you wish to gain more knowledge and understanding, I would suggest you stop outsourcing your cognition to a chatbot. permalink fedilink source parent load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (1 reply) [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] hirihit640@sh.itjust.works 1 point 2 months ago* (2 children) You overestimate most people. Here's a study from 2025 https://arxiv.org/html/2211.13087 Among AI models, Blenderbot stood out: in AI-AI conversations, it was judged human 67% of the times - more often than actual human-human conversations. In human-AI conversations, human participants were labeled as humans 68% of the time, and AIs were classified as AI 56% of the time. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] h0tbeef@lemmy.zip 1 point 2 months ago* (1 child) 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] hirihit640@sh.itjust.works 1 point 2 months ago Something I should point out just in case is that 50% success rate is the same as random chance. So when the study says: AIs were classified as AI 56% of the time. That really means that humans could not tell the difference between AI and human, since their success rate was almost the same as random chance. 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. Sure, and that task was "imitate humans", and these computers seem remarkably good at it. That's what I'm saying. I don't care that these AI work differently than humans. They can imitate humans so well that humans can't tell the difference. permalink fedilink source parent load more comments (1 reply)
[–] kadu@scribe.disroot.org 2 points 2 months ago (1 child) I come back to Lemmy after 6 months and immediately read this. So that was a mistake. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] hirihit640@sh.itjust.works 2 points 2 months ago Some humans think humans are so special. "Sentient" and "conscious". Now I don't claim that computers are special, I think they are just as non-special as humans. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] hirihit640@sh.itjust.works 2 points 2 months ago Some humans think humans are so special. "Sentient" and "conscious". Now I don't claim that computers are special, I think they are just as non-special as humans. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] h0tbeef@lemmy.zip 1 point 2 months ago (13 children) 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 permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 13 child comments replies: [–] hirihit640@sh.itjust.works -1 points 2 months ago (12 children) Sounds like you haven't tried modern AI yet. I could train an AI on your comment history and copy you, and nobody would be able to tell the difference permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 12 child comments replies: [–] Epp@lemmus.org 3 points 2 months ago* (7 children) I've tried. They're adamant against AI here. It's not even worth the discussion. There's an army of belligerent people here who have made up their minds that LLM are "stochastic parrots" and they're convinced they understand exactly how they work. No one can tell them otherwise. Doesn't even matter your credentials. They're the experts here. If you argue, they'll only belittle you. Save yourself the frustration and heartache; just silently pity them. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 7 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Epp@lemmus.org 1 point 2 months ago* (5 children) Uh huh... That makes you specifically qualified on the topic? Far more than myself, certainly, with my MSc in Machine Learning. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Epp@lemmus.org 1 point 2 months ago (3 children) Surely you know that under the hood we're all just algorithms? Electrical impulses determining what we're going to do before our own consciousness are aware of the impending decision. You make the mistake of ascribing more importance to the "1s and 0s" of neuron activity we ourselves encompass, and imagining that a different arrangement of that exact same activity could not possibly yield a similar outcome. It's like saying plants can't be alive because they don't have brains. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Epp@lemmus.org 1 point 2 months ago (1 child) Sorry, 'h0tbeef', I forgot that only you understand consciousness and only you know how it is defined. So only you know what qualifies, because of your superior understanding that no one else can possibly hope to have. Of course, only humans are capable of being conscious, you're absolutely right as always. You're so clever, you should go reward yourself with a cookie. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] h0tbeef@lemmy.zip 0 points 2 months ago Oh, have we reached the stage of the debate where you project your insecurities onto me in a desperate bid to avoid conceding your palpably untenable position? How dignified. If you wish to gain more knowledge and understanding, I would suggest you stop outsourcing your cognition to a chatbot. permalink fedilink source parent load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (1 reply) [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] hirihit640@sh.itjust.works 1 point 2 months ago* (2 children) You overestimate most people. Here's a study from 2025 https://arxiv.org/html/2211.13087 Among AI models, Blenderbot stood out: in AI-AI conversations, it was judged human 67% of the times - more often than actual human-human conversations. In human-AI conversations, human participants were labeled as humans 68% of the time, and AIs were classified as AI 56% of the time. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] h0tbeef@lemmy.zip 1 point 2 months ago* (1 child) 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] hirihit640@sh.itjust.works 1 point 2 months ago Something I should point out just in case is that 50% success rate is the same as random chance. So when the study says: AIs were classified as AI 56% of the time. That really means that humans could not tell the difference between AI and human, since their success rate was almost the same as random chance. 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. Sure, and that task was "imitate humans", and these computers seem remarkably good at it. That's what I'm saying. I don't care that these AI work differently than humans. They can imitate humans so well that humans can't tell the difference. permalink fedilink source parent load more comments (1 reply)
[–] hirihit640@sh.itjust.works -1 points 2 months ago (12 children) Sounds like you haven't tried modern AI yet. I could train an AI on your comment history and copy you, and nobody would be able to tell the difference permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 12 child comments replies: [–] Epp@lemmus.org 3 points 2 months ago* (7 children) I've tried. They're adamant against AI here. It's not even worth the discussion. There's an army of belligerent people here who have made up their minds that LLM are "stochastic parrots" and they're convinced they understand exactly how they work. No one can tell them otherwise. Doesn't even matter your credentials. They're the experts here. If you argue, they'll only belittle you. Save yourself the frustration and heartache; just silently pity them. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 7 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Epp@lemmus.org 1 point 2 months ago* (5 children) Uh huh... That makes you specifically qualified on the topic? Far more than myself, certainly, with my MSc in Machine Learning. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Epp@lemmus.org 1 point 2 months ago (3 children) Surely you know that under the hood we're all just algorithms? Electrical impulses determining what we're going to do before our own consciousness are aware of the impending decision. You make the mistake of ascribing more importance to the "1s and 0s" of neuron activity we ourselves encompass, and imagining that a different arrangement of that exact same activity could not possibly yield a similar outcome. It's like saying plants can't be alive because they don't have brains. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Epp@lemmus.org 1 point 2 months ago (1 child) Sorry, 'h0tbeef', I forgot that only you understand consciousness and only you know how it is defined. So only you know what qualifies, because of your superior understanding that no one else can possibly hope to have. Of course, only humans are capable of being conscious, you're absolutely right as always. You're so clever, you should go reward yourself with a cookie. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] h0tbeef@lemmy.zip 0 points 2 months ago Oh, have we reached the stage of the debate where you project your insecurities onto me in a desperate bid to avoid conceding your palpably untenable position? How dignified. If you wish to gain more knowledge and understanding, I would suggest you stop outsourcing your cognition to a chatbot. permalink fedilink source parent load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (1 reply) [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] hirihit640@sh.itjust.works 1 point 2 months ago* (2 children) You overestimate most people. Here's a study from 2025 https://arxiv.org/html/2211.13087 Among AI models, Blenderbot stood out: in AI-AI conversations, it was judged human 67% of the times - more often than actual human-human conversations. In human-AI conversations, human participants were labeled as humans 68% of the time, and AIs were classified as AI 56% of the time. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] h0tbeef@lemmy.zip 1 point 2 months ago* (1 child) 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] hirihit640@sh.itjust.works 1 point 2 months ago Something I should point out just in case is that 50% success rate is the same as random chance. So when the study says: AIs were classified as AI 56% of the time. That really means that humans could not tell the difference between AI and human, since their success rate was almost the same as random chance. 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. Sure, and that task was "imitate humans", and these computers seem remarkably good at it. That's what I'm saying. I don't care that these AI work differently than humans. They can imitate humans so well that humans can't tell the difference. permalink fedilink source parent load more comments (1 reply)
[–] Epp@lemmus.org 3 points 2 months ago* (7 children) I've tried. They're adamant against AI here. It's not even worth the discussion. There's an army of belligerent people here who have made up their minds that LLM are "stochastic parrots" and they're convinced they understand exactly how they work. No one can tell them otherwise. Doesn't even matter your credentials. They're the experts here. If you argue, they'll only belittle you. Save yourself the frustration and heartache; just silently pity them. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 7 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Epp@lemmus.org 1 point 2 months ago* (5 children) Uh huh... That makes you specifically qualified on the topic? Far more than myself, certainly, with my MSc in Machine Learning. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Epp@lemmus.org 1 point 2 months ago (3 children) Surely you know that under the hood we're all just algorithms? Electrical impulses determining what we're going to do before our own consciousness are aware of the impending decision. You make the mistake of ascribing more importance to the "1s and 0s" of neuron activity we ourselves encompass, and imagining that a different arrangement of that exact same activity could not possibly yield a similar outcome. It's like saying plants can't be alive because they don't have brains. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Epp@lemmus.org 1 point 2 months ago (1 child) Sorry, 'h0tbeef', I forgot that only you understand consciousness and only you know how it is defined. So only you know what qualifies, because of your superior understanding that no one else can possibly hope to have. Of course, only humans are capable of being conscious, you're absolutely right as always. You're so clever, you should go reward yourself with a cookie. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] h0tbeef@lemmy.zip 0 points 2 months ago Oh, have we reached the stage of the debate where you project your insecurities onto me in a desperate bid to avoid conceding your palpably untenable position? How dignified. If you wish to gain more knowledge and understanding, I would suggest you stop outsourcing your cognition to a chatbot. permalink fedilink source parent load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (1 reply)
[–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Epp@lemmus.org 1 point 2 months ago* (5 children) Uh huh... That makes you specifically qualified on the topic? Far more than myself, certainly, with my MSc in Machine Learning. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Epp@lemmus.org 1 point 2 months ago (3 children) Surely you know that under the hood we're all just algorithms? Electrical impulses determining what we're going to do before our own consciousness are aware of the impending decision. You make the mistake of ascribing more importance to the "1s and 0s" of neuron activity we ourselves encompass, and imagining that a different arrangement of that exact same activity could not possibly yield a similar outcome. It's like saying plants can't be alive because they don't have brains. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Epp@lemmus.org 1 point 2 months ago (1 child) Sorry, 'h0tbeef', I forgot that only you understand consciousness and only you know how it is defined. So only you know what qualifies, because of your superior understanding that no one else can possibly hope to have. Of course, only humans are capable of being conscious, you're absolutely right as always. You're so clever, you should go reward yourself with a cookie. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] h0tbeef@lemmy.zip 0 points 2 months ago Oh, have we reached the stage of the debate where you project your insecurities onto me in a desperate bid to avoid conceding your palpably untenable position? How dignified. If you wish to gain more knowledge and understanding, I would suggest you stop outsourcing your cognition to a chatbot. permalink fedilink source parent load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (1 reply)
[–] Epp@lemmus.org 1 point 2 months ago* (5 children) Uh huh... That makes you specifically qualified on the topic? Far more than myself, certainly, with my MSc in Machine Learning. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Epp@lemmus.org 1 point 2 months ago (3 children) Surely you know that under the hood we're all just algorithms? Electrical impulses determining what we're going to do before our own consciousness are aware of the impending decision. You make the mistake of ascribing more importance to the "1s and 0s" of neuron activity we ourselves encompass, and imagining that a different arrangement of that exact same activity could not possibly yield a similar outcome. It's like saying plants can't be alive because they don't have brains. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Epp@lemmus.org 1 point 2 months ago (1 child) Sorry, 'h0tbeef', I forgot that only you understand consciousness and only you know how it is defined. So only you know what qualifies, because of your superior understanding that no one else can possibly hope to have. Of course, only humans are capable of being conscious, you're absolutely right as always. You're so clever, you should go reward yourself with a cookie. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] h0tbeef@lemmy.zip 0 points 2 months ago Oh, have we reached the stage of the debate where you project your insecurities onto me in a desperate bid to avoid conceding your palpably untenable position? How dignified. If you wish to gain more knowledge and understanding, I would suggest you stop outsourcing your cognition to a chatbot. permalink fedilink source parent load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (1 reply)
[–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Epp@lemmus.org 1 point 2 months ago (3 children) Surely you know that under the hood we're all just algorithms? Electrical impulses determining what we're going to do before our own consciousness are aware of the impending decision. You make the mistake of ascribing more importance to the "1s and 0s" of neuron activity we ourselves encompass, and imagining that a different arrangement of that exact same activity could not possibly yield a similar outcome. It's like saying plants can't be alive because they don't have brains. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Epp@lemmus.org 1 point 2 months ago (1 child) Sorry, 'h0tbeef', I forgot that only you understand consciousness and only you know how it is defined. So only you know what qualifies, because of your superior understanding that no one else can possibly hope to have. Of course, only humans are capable of being conscious, you're absolutely right as always. You're so clever, you should go reward yourself with a cookie. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] h0tbeef@lemmy.zip 0 points 2 months ago Oh, have we reached the stage of the debate where you project your insecurities onto me in a desperate bid to avoid conceding your palpably untenable position? How dignified. If you wish to gain more knowledge and understanding, I would suggest you stop outsourcing your cognition to a chatbot. permalink fedilink source parent load more comments (1 reply)
[–] Epp@lemmus.org 1 point 2 months ago (3 children) Surely you know that under the hood we're all just algorithms? Electrical impulses determining what we're going to do before our own consciousness are aware of the impending decision. You make the mistake of ascribing more importance to the "1s and 0s" of neuron activity we ourselves encompass, and imagining that a different arrangement of that exact same activity could not possibly yield a similar outcome. It's like saying plants can't be alive because they don't have brains. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Epp@lemmus.org 1 point 2 months ago (1 child) Sorry, 'h0tbeef', I forgot that only you understand consciousness and only you know how it is defined. So only you know what qualifies, because of your superior understanding that no one else can possibly hope to have. Of course, only humans are capable of being conscious, you're absolutely right as always. You're so clever, you should go reward yourself with a cookie. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] h0tbeef@lemmy.zip 0 points 2 months ago Oh, have we reached the stage of the debate where you project your insecurities onto me in a desperate bid to avoid conceding your palpably untenable position? How dignified. If you wish to gain more knowledge and understanding, I would suggest you stop outsourcing your cognition to a chatbot. permalink fedilink source parent load more comments (1 reply)
[–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Epp@lemmus.org 1 point 2 months ago (1 child) Sorry, 'h0tbeef', I forgot that only you understand consciousness and only you know how it is defined. So only you know what qualifies, because of your superior understanding that no one else can possibly hope to have. Of course, only humans are capable of being conscious, you're absolutely right as always. You're so clever, you should go reward yourself with a cookie. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] h0tbeef@lemmy.zip 0 points 2 months ago Oh, have we reached the stage of the debate where you project your insecurities onto me in a desperate bid to avoid conceding your palpably untenable position? How dignified. If you wish to gain more knowledge and understanding, I would suggest you stop outsourcing your cognition to a chatbot. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Epp@lemmus.org 1 point 2 months ago (1 child) Sorry, 'h0tbeef', I forgot that only you understand consciousness and only you know how it is defined. So only you know what qualifies, because of your superior understanding that no one else can possibly hope to have. Of course, only humans are capable of being conscious, you're absolutely right as always. You're so clever, you should go reward yourself with a cookie. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] h0tbeef@lemmy.zip 0 points 2 months ago Oh, have we reached the stage of the debate where you project your insecurities onto me in a desperate bid to avoid conceding your palpably untenable position? How dignified. If you wish to gain more knowledge and understanding, I would suggest you stop outsourcing your cognition to a chatbot. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] h0tbeef@lemmy.zip 0 points 2 months ago Oh, have we reached the stage of the debate where you project your insecurities onto me in a desperate bid to avoid conceding your palpably untenable position? How dignified. If you wish to gain more knowledge and understanding, I would suggest you stop outsourcing your cognition to a chatbot. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] hirihit640@sh.itjust.works 1 point 2 months ago* (2 children) You overestimate most people. Here's a study from 2025 https://arxiv.org/html/2211.13087 Among AI models, Blenderbot stood out: in AI-AI conversations, it was judged human 67% of the times - more often than actual human-human conversations. In human-AI conversations, human participants were labeled as humans 68% of the time, and AIs were classified as AI 56% of the time. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] h0tbeef@lemmy.zip 1 point 2 months ago* (1 child) 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] hirihit640@sh.itjust.works 1 point 2 months ago Something I should point out just in case is that 50% success rate is the same as random chance. So when the study says: AIs were classified as AI 56% of the time. That really means that humans could not tell the difference between AI and human, since their success rate was almost the same as random chance. 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. Sure, and that task was "imitate humans", and these computers seem remarkably good at it. That's what I'm saying. I don't care that these AI work differently than humans. They can imitate humans so well that humans can't tell the difference. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] hirihit640@sh.itjust.works 1 point 2 months ago* (2 children) You overestimate most people. Here's a study from 2025 https://arxiv.org/html/2211.13087 Among AI models, Blenderbot stood out: in AI-AI conversations, it was judged human 67% of the times - more often than actual human-human conversations. In human-AI conversations, human participants were labeled as humans 68% of the time, and AIs were classified as AI 56% of the time. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] h0tbeef@lemmy.zip 1 point 2 months ago* (1 child) 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] hirihit640@sh.itjust.works 1 point 2 months ago Something I should point out just in case is that 50% success rate is the same as random chance. So when the study says: AIs were classified as AI 56% of the time. That really means that humans could not tell the difference between AI and human, since their success rate was almost the same as random chance. 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. Sure, and that task was "imitate humans", and these computers seem remarkably good at it. That's what I'm saying. I don't care that these AI work differently than humans. They can imitate humans so well that humans can't tell the difference. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] h0tbeef@lemmy.zip 1 point 2 months ago* (1 child) 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] hirihit640@sh.itjust.works 1 point 2 months ago Something I should point out just in case is that 50% success rate is the same as random chance. So when the study says: AIs were classified as AI 56% of the time. That really means that humans could not tell the difference between AI and human, since their success rate was almost the same as random chance. 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. Sure, and that task was "imitate humans", and these computers seem remarkably good at it. That's what I'm saying. I don't care that these AI work differently than humans. They can imitate humans so well that humans can't tell the difference. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] hirihit640@sh.itjust.works 1 point 2 months ago Something I should point out just in case is that 50% success rate is the same as random chance. So when the study says: AIs were classified as AI 56% of the time. That really means that humans could not tell the difference between AI and human, since their success rate was almost the same as random chance. 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. Sure, and that task was "imitate humans", and these computers seem remarkably good at it. That's what I'm saying. I don't care that these AI work differently than humans. They can imitate humans so well that humans can't tell the difference. permalink fedilink source parent