We are constantly fed a version of AI that looks, sounds and acts suspiciously like us. It speaks in polished sentences, mimics emotions, expresses curiosity, claims to feel compassion, even dabbles in what it calls creativity.

But what we call AI today is nothing more than a statistical machine: a digital parrot regurgitating patterns mined from oceans of human data (the situation hasn’t changed much since it was discussed here five years ago). When it writes an answer to a question, it literally just guesses which letter and word will come next in a sequence – based on the data it’s been trained on.

This means AI has no understanding. No consciousness. No knowledge in any real, human sense. Just pure probability-driven, engineered brilliance — nothing more, and nothing less.

So why is a real “thinking” AI likely impossible? Because it’s bodiless. It has no senses, no flesh, no nerves, no pain, no pleasure. It doesn’t hunger, desire or fear. And because there is no cognition — not a shred — there’s a fundamental gap between the data it consumes (data born out of human feelings and experience) and what it can do with them.

Philosopher David Chalmers calls the mysterious mechanism underlying the relationship between our physical body and consciousness the “hard problem of consciousness”. Eminent scientists have recently hypothesised that consciousness actually emerges from the integration of internal, mental states with sensory representations (such as changes in heart rate, sweating and much more).

Given the paramount importance of the human senses and emotion for consciousness to “happen”, there is a profound and probably irreconcilable disconnect between general AI, the machine, and consciousness, a human phenomenon.

https://archive.ph/Fapar

top 83 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 43 points 1 year ago (15 children)

Anyone pretending AI has intelligence is a fucking idiot.

  • source
  • hideshow 15 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago (11 children)

    AI is not actual intelligence. However, it can produce results better than a significant number of professionally employed people...

    I am reminded of when word processors came out and "administrative assistant" dwindled as a role in mid-level professional organizations, most people - even increasingly medical doctors these days - do their own typing. The whole "typing pool" concept has pretty well dried up.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [+] 1 point 1 year ago (3 children)
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago (6 children)

    However, there is a huge energy cost for that speed to process statistically the information to mimic intelligence. The human brain is consuming much less energy. Also, AI will be fine with well defined task where innovation isn't a requirement. As it is today, AI is incapable to innovate.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago

    The human brain is consuming much less energy

    Yes, but when you fully load the human brain's energy costs with 20 years of schooling, 20 years of "retirement" and old-age care, vacation, sleep, personal time, housing, transportation, etc. etc. - it adds up.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    much less? I'm pretty sure our brains need food and food requires lots of other stuff that need transportation or energy themselves to produce.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago

    Your brain is running on sugar. Do you take into account the energy spent in coal mining, oil fields exploration, refinery, transportation, electricity transmission loss when computing the amount of energy required to build and run AI? Do you take into account all the energy consumption for the knowledge production in first place to train your model? Running the brain alone is much less energy intensive than running an AI model. And the brain can create actual new content/knowledge. There is nothing like the brain. AI excel at processing large amount of data, which the brain is not made for.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Customarily, when doing these kind of calculations we ignore stuff which keep us alive because these things are needed regardless of economic contributions, since you know people are people and not tools.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago

    Caveat: Anyone who has been scrutinising 'AI'.

    Something i often forget is the vast majority of the population doesnt care about technology, privacy, the mechanics of LLMs as much as i do and I pay attention to.
    So most people read/hear/watch stories of how great it is and how clever AI can do simple things for them so its easy to see how they think its doing a lot more 'thought' logic work than it really is, other than realistically it being a glorified word predictor.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 55 points 1 year ago (17 children)

    I think we should start by not following this marketing speak. The sentence "AI isn't intelligent" makes no sense. What we mean is "LLMs aren't intelligent".

  • source
  • hideshow 17 child comments
  • [–] 16 points 1 year ago (15 children)

    So couldn't we say LLM's aren't really AI? Cuz that's what I've seen to come to terms with.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 15 child comments
  • [–] 29 points 1 year ago (7 children)

    To be fair, the term "AI" has always been used in an extremely vague way.

    NPCs in video games, chess computers, or other such tech are not sentient and do not have general intelligence, yet we've been referring to those as "AI" for decades without anybody taking an issue with it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago

    It's true that the word has always been used loosely, but there was no issue with it because nobody believed what was called AI to have actual intelligence. Now this is no longer the case, and so it becomes important to be more clear with our words.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 8 points 1 year ago* (4 children)

    I don't think the term AI has been used in a vague way, it's that there's a huge disconnect between how the technical fields use it vs general populace and marketing groups heavily abuse that disconnect.

    Artificial has two meanings/use cases. One is to indicate something is fake (video game NPC, chess bots, vegan cheese). The end product looks close enough to the real thing that for its intended use case it works well enough. Looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, treat it like a duck even though we all know it's a bunny with a costume on. LLMs on a technical level fit this definition.

    The other definition is man made. Artificial diamonds are a great example of this, they're still diamonds at the end of the day, they have all the same chemical makeups, same chemical and physical properties. The only difference is they came from a laboratory made by adult workers vs child slave labor.

    My pet theory is science fiction got the general populace to think of artificial intelligence to be using the "man-made" definition instead of the "fake" definition that these companies are using. In the past the subtle nuance never caused a problem so we all just kinda ignored it

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [+] 4 points 1 year ago (3 children)
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago* (2 children)

    May I present to you:

    The Marriam-Webster Dictionary

    https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/artificial

    Definition #3b

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

    Word roots say they have a point though. Artifice, Artificial etc. I think the main problem with the way both of the people above you are using this terminology is that they're focusing on the wrong word and how that word is being conflated with something it's not.

    LLM's are artificial. They are a man made thing that is intended to fool man into believing they are something they aren't. What we're meant to be convinced they are is sapiently intelligent.

    Mimicry is not sapience and that's where the argument for LLM's being real honest to God AI falls apart.

    Sapience is missing from Generative LLM's. They don't actually think. They don't actually have motivation. What we're doing when we anthropomorphize them is we are fooling ourselves into thinking they are a man-made reproduction of us without the meat flavored skin suit. That's not what's happening. But some of us are convinced that it is, or that it's near enough that it doesn't matter.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    LLMs are one of the approximately one metric crap ton of different technologies that fall under the rather broad umbrella of the field of study that is called AI. The definition for what is and isn't AI can be pretty vague, but I would argue that LLMs are definitely AI because they exist with the express purpose of imitating human behavior.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [+] 1 point 1 year ago (3 children)
  • [–] 7 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    It is and it isn't. Again, the whole thing is super vague. Machine vision or pattern seeking algorithms do not try to imitate any human behavior, but they fall under AI.

    Let me put it this way: Things that try to imitate human behavior or intelligence are AI, but not all AI is about trying to imitate human behavior or intelligence.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago

    From a programming pov, a definition of AI could be an algorithm or construct that can solve problems or perform tasks without the programmer specifically solving that problem or programming the steps of the task but rather building something that can figure it out on its own.

    Though a lot of game AIs don't fit that description.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] -1 points 1 year ago

    can say whatever the fuck we want. This isn't any kind of real issue. Think about it. If you went the rest of your life calling LLM's turkey butt fuck sandwhichs, what changes? This article is just shit and people looking to be outraged over something that other articles told them to be outraged about. This is all pure fucking modern yellow journalism. I hope turkey butt sandwiches replace every journalist. I'm so done with their crap

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 25 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    The other thing that most people don't focus on is how we train LLMs.

    We're basically building something like a spider tailed viper. A spider tailed viper is a kind of snake that has a growth on its tail that looks a lot like a spider. It wiggles it around so it looks like a spider, convincing birds they've found a snack, and when the bird gets close enough the snake strikes and eats the bird.

    Now, I'm not saying we're building something that is designed to kill us. But, I am saying that we're putting enormous effort into building something that can fool us into thinking it's intelligent. We're not trying to build something that can do something intelligent. We're instead trying to build something that mimics intelligence.

    What we're effectively doing is looking at this thing that mimics a spider, and trying harder and harder to tweak its design so that it looks more and more realistic. What's crazy about that is that we're not building this to fool a predator so that we're not in danger. We're not doing it to fool prey, so we can catch and eat them more easily. We're doing it so we can fool ourselves.

    It's like if, instead of a spider-tailed snake, a snake evolved a bird-like tail, and evolution kept tweaking the design so that the tail was more and more likely to fool the snake so it would bite its own tail. Except, evolution doesn't work like that because a snake that ignored actual prey and instead insisted on attacking its own tail would be an evolutionary dead end. Only a truly stupid species like humans would intentionally design something that wasn't intelligent but mimicked intelligence well enough that other humans preferred it to actual information and knowledge.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago

    To the extent it is people trying to fool people, it's rich people looking to fool poorer people for the most part.

    To the extent it's actually useful, it's to replace certain systems.

    Think of the humble phone tree, designed to make it so humans aren't having to respond, triage, and route calls. So you can have an AI system that can significantly shorten that role, instead of navigating a tedious long maze of options, a couple of sentences back and forth and you either get the portion of automated information that would suffice or routed to a human to take care of it. Same analogy for a lot of online interactions where you have to input way too much and if automated data, you get a wall of text of which you'd like something to distill the relevant 3 or 4 sentences according to your query.

    So there are useful interactions.

    However it's also true that it's dangerous because the "make user approve of the interaction" can bring out the worst in people when they feel like something is just always agreeing with them. Social media has been bad enough, but chatbots that by design want to please the enduser and look almost legitimate really can inflame the worst in our minds.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 61 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    Good luck. Even David Attenborrough can't help but anthropomorphize. People will feel sorry for a picture of a dot separated from a cluster of other dots. The play by AI companies is that it's human nature for us to want to give just about every damn thing human qualities. I'd explain more but as I write this my smoke alarm is beeping a low battery warning, and I need to go put the poor dear out of its misery.

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 24 points 1 year ago

    This is the current problem with "misalignment". It's a real issue, but it's not "AI lying to prevent itself from being shut off" as a lot of articles tend to anthropomorphize it. The issue is (generally speaking) it's trying to maximize a numerical reward by providing responses to people that they find satisfactory. A legion of tech CEOs are flogging the algorithm to do just that, and as we all know, most people don't actually want to hear the truth. They want to hear what they want to hear.

    LLMs are a poor stand in for actual AI, but they are at least proficient at the actual thing they are doing. Which leads us to things like this, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zKCynxiV_8I

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 21 points 1 year ago

    The idea that RAGs "extend their memory" is also complete bullshit. We literally just finally build working search engine, but instead of using a nice interface for it we only let chatbots use them.

  • source
  • [–] 20 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    People who don't like "AI" should check out the newsletter and / or podcast of Ed Zitron. He goes hard on the topic.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 18 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Citation Needed (by Molly White) also frequently bashes AI.

    I like her stuff because, no matter how you feel about crypto, AI, or other big tech, you can never fault her reporting. She steers clear of any subjective accusations or prognostication.

    It’s all “ABC person claimed XYZ thing on such and such date, and then 24 hours later submitted a report to the FTC claiming the exact opposite. They later bought $5 million worth of Trumpcoin, and two weeks later the FTC announced they were dropping the lawsuit.”

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago

    I'm subscribed to her Web3 is Going Great RSS. She coded the website in straight HTML, according to a podcast that I listen to. She's great.

    I didn't know she had a podcast. I just added it to my backup playlist. If it's as good as I hope it is, it'll get moved to the primary playlist. Thanks!

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 24 points 1 year ago (8 children)

    Steve Gibson on his podcast, Security Now!, recently suggested that we should call it "Simulated Intelligence". I tend to agree.

  • source
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    reminds me of Mass Effect's VI, "virtual intelligence": a system that's specifically designed to be not truly intelligent, as AI systems are banned throughout the galaxy for its potential to go rogue.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    I love that. It makes me want to take it a step further and just call it "imitation intelligence."

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 23 points 1 year ago (14 children)

    This article is written in such a heavy ChatGPT style that it's hard to read. Asking a question and then immediately answering it? That's AI-speak.

  • source
  • hideshow 14 child comments
  • [–] 19 points 1 year ago (12 children)

    And excessive use of em-dashes, which is the first thing I look for. He does say he uses LLMs a lot.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [–] 19 points 1 year ago* (11 children)

    "…" (Unicode U+2026 Horizontal Ellipsis) instead of "..." (three full stops), and using them unnecessarily, is another thing I rarely see from humans.

    Edit: Huh. Lemmy automatically changed my three fulls stops to the Unicode character. I might be wrong on this one.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 1 year ago (9 children)

    Am I… AI? I do use ellipses and (what I now see is) en dashes for punctuation. Mainly because they are longer than hyphens and look better in a sentence. Em dash looks too long.

    However, that's on my phone. On a normal keyboard I use 3 periods and 2 hyphens instead.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago (5 children)

    I’ve long been an enthusiast of unpopular punctuation—the ellipsis, the em-dash, the interrobang‽

    The trick to using the em-dash is not to surround it with spaces which tend to break up the text visually. So, this feels good—to me—whereas this — feels unpleasant. I learnt this approach from reading typographer Erik Spiekermann’s book, *Stop Stealing Sheep & Find Out How Type Works.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    My language doesn't really have hyphenated words or different dashes. It's mostly punctuation within a sentence. As such there are almost no cases where one encounters a dash without spaces.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (1 child)

    Sounds wonderful. I recently had my writing—which is liberally sprinkled with em-dashes—edited to add spaces to conform to the house style and this made me sad.

    I also feel sad that I failed to (ironically) mention the under-appreciated semicolon; punctuation that is not as adamant as a full stop but more assertive than a comma. I should use it more often.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    I've been getting into the habit of also using em/en dashes on the computer through the Compose key. Very convenient for typing arrows, inequality and other math signs, etc. I don't use it for ellipsis because they're not visually clearer nor shorter to type.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 16 points 1 year ago (5 children)

    Hey AI helped me stick it to the insurance man the other day. I was futzing around with coverage amounts on one of the major insurance companies websites pre-renewal to try to get the best rate and it spit up a NaN renewal amount for our most expensive vehicle. It let me go through with the renewal less that $700 and now says I'm paid in full for the six month period. It's been days now with no follow-up . . . I'm pretty sure AI snuck that one through for me.

  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 14 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    Be careful... If you get in an accident I guaran-god-damn-tee you they will use it as an excuse not to pay out. Maybe after a lawsuit you'd see some money but at that point half of it goes to the lawyer and you're still screwed.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Oh I'm aware of the potential pitfalls but it's something I'm willing to risk to stick it to insurance. I wouldn't even carry it if it wasn't required by law. I have the funds to cover what they would cover.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    If you have the funds you could self insure. You'd need to look up the details for your jurisdiction, but the gist of it is you keep the amount required coverage in an account that you never touch until you need to pay out.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

    Hmm I have daydreamed about this scenario. I didn't realize it was a thing. Thanks, I'll check into it, though I wouldn't doubt if it's not a thing in my dystopian red flyover state.

    Edit: Yeah, you have to be the registered owner of 25 or more vehicles to qualify for self insurance in my state. So, dealers and rich people only, unfortunately.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 8 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

    It's only as intelligent as the people that control and regulate it.

    Given all the documented instances of Facebook and other social media using subliminal emotional manipulation, I honestly wonder if the recent cases of AI chat induced psychosis are related to something similar.

    Like we know they're meant to get you to continue using them, which is itself a bit of psychological manipulation. How far does it go? Could there also be things like using subliminal messaging/lighting? This stuff is all so new and poorly understood, but that usually doesn't stop these sacks of shit from moving full speed with implementing this kind of thing.

    It could be that certain individuals have unknown vulnerabilities that make them more susceptible to psychosis due to whatever manipulations are used to make people keep using the product. Maybe they're doing some things to users that are harmful, but didn't seem problematic during testing?

    Or equally as likely, they never even bothered to test it out, just started subliminally fucking with people's brains, and now people are going haywire because a bunch of unethical shit heads believe they are the chosen elite who know what must be done to ensure society is able to achieve greatness. It just so happens that "what must be done," also makes them a ton of money and harms people using their products.

    It's so fucking absurd to watch the same people jamming unregulated AI and automation down our throats while simultaneously forcing traditionalism, and a legal system inspired by Catholic integralist belief on society.

    If you criticize the lack of regulations in the wild west of technology policy, or even suggest just using a little bit of fucking caution, then you're trying to hold back progress.

    However, all non-tech related policy should be based on ancient traditions and biblical text with arbitrary rules and restrictions that only make sense and benefit the people enforcing the law.

    What a stupid and convoluted way to express you just don't like evidence based policy or using critical thinking skills, and instead prefer to just navigate life by relying on the basic signals from your lizard brain. Feels good so keep moving towards, feels bad so run away, or feels scary so attack!

    Such is the reality of the chosen elite, steering us towards greatness.

    What's really "funny" (in a we're all doomed sort of way) is that while writing this all out, I realized the "chosen elite" controlling tech and policy actually perfectly embody the current problem with AI and bias.

    Rather than relying on intelligence to analyze a situation in the present, and create the best and most appropriate response based on the information and evidence before them, they default to a set of pre-concieved rules written thousands of years ago with zero context to the current reality/environment and the problem at hand.

  • source
  • [–] 27 points 1 year ago (10 children)

    So why is a real “thinking” AI likely impossible? Because it’s bodiless. It has no senses, no flesh, no nerves, no pain, no pleasure.

    This is not a good argument.

  • source
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago (6 children)

    The book The Emperors new Mind is old (1989), but it gave a good argument why machine base AI was not possible. Our minds work on a fundamentally different principle then Turing machines.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 1 year ago* (3 children)

    It's hard to see that books argument from the Wikipedia entry, but I don't see it arguing that intelligence needs to have senses, flesh, nerves, pain and pleasure.

    It's just saying computer algorithms are not what humans use for consciousness. Which seems a reasonable conclusion. It doesn't imply computers can't gain consciousness, or that they need flesh and senses to do so.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    I think what he is implying is that current computer design will never be able to gain consciousness. Maybe a fundamentally different type of computer can, but is anything like that even on the horizon?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] -2 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    philosopher

    Here's why. It's a quote from a pure academic attempting to describe something practical.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • The philosopher has made an unproven assumption. An erroneously logical leap. Something an academic shouldn't do.

    Just because everything we currently consider conscious has a physical presence, does not imply that consciousness requires a physical body.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
    load more comments
    view more: next ›
    36 comments in c/technology@lemmy.ml view that post
    16 comments in c/science@lemmy.world view that post
    3 comments in c/technology@lemmy.zip view that post