Not sure if this is the best community to post in; please let me know if there’s a more appropriate one. AFAIK Aii@programming.dev is meant for news and articles only.
You must log in or register to comment.
Most arguments people make against AI are in my opinion actually arguments against capitalism. Honestly, I agree with all of them, too. Ecological impact? A result of the extractive logic of capitalism. Stagnant wages, unemployment, and economic dismay for regular working people? Gains from AI being extracted by the wealthy elite. The fear shouldn’t be in the technology itself, but in the system that puts profit at all costs over people.
Data theft? Data should be a public good where authors are guaranteed a dignified life (decoupled from the sale of their labor).
Enshittification, AI overview being shoved down all our throats? Tactics used to maximize profits tricking us into believing AI products are useful.
AI is just a tool like anything else. What’s the saying again? "AI doesn’t kill people, capitalism kills people?
I do AI research for climate and other things and it’s absolutely widely used for so many amazing things that objectively improve the world. It’s the gross profit-above-all incentives that have ruined “AI” (in quotes because the general public sees AI as chatbots and funny pictures, when it’s so much more).
The quotes are because “AI” doesn’t exist. There are many programs and algorithms being used in a variety of way. But none of them are “intelligent”.
There is literally no intelligence in a climate model. It’s just data + statistics + compute. Please stop participating in the pseudo-scientific grift.
The quotes are because “AI” doesn’t exist. There are many programs and algorithms being used in a variety of way. But none of them are “intelligent”.
And this is where you show your ignorance. You’re using the colloquial definition for intelligence and applying incorrectly.
By definition, a worm has intelligence. The academic, or biological, definition of intelligence is the ability to make decisions based on a set of available information. It doesn’t mean that something is “smart”, which is how you’re using it.
“Artificial Intelligence” is a specific definition we typically apply to an algorithm that’s been modelled after the real world structure and behaviour of neurons and how they process signals. We take large amounts of data to train it and it “learns” and “remembers” those specific things. Then when we ask it to process new data it can make an “intelligent” decision on what comes next. That’s how you use the word correctly.
Your ignorance didn’t make you right.
algorithm that’s been modelled after the real world structure and behaviour of neurons and how they process signals
Except the Neural Net model doesn’t actually reproduce everything real, living neurons do. A mathematician in the 70s said, “hey what if this is how brains work?” He didn’t actually study brains, he just put forward a model. It’s a useful model. But it’s also an extreme misrepresentation to say it approximates actual neurons.
A mathematician in the 70s said, “hey what if this is how brains work?”
If you really want to be pedantic, the modern concept of neural networks was invented decades prior.
But in either case, ANN do follow the basic concept of how neurons work. That’s not even up for debate. Obviously biological neurons have way more going on, and there’s even evidence for “warm” quantum processing happening within each neuron in the microtubules. But the feed-forward signal mechanism is real, and ANNs are based on that concept.
Except the Neural Net model doesn’t actually reproduce everything real, living neurons do.
No idea what you’re saying here. But if I had to guess, you’re saying that “real brains, not artificial ones, create novel outputs”. And if that is what you meant, then congrats, you said nothing of value. The discussion was never about biological vs artificial neural network quality.
reproduce everything real, living neurons do.
is not a strict requirement for intelligence.
it’s also an extreme misrepresentation to say it approximates actual neurons.
well you’re in luck, because i have seen a website counter to your claim!
Thread: Circuits
lol ok buddy you definitely know more than me
FWIW I think you’re conflating AGI with AI, maybe learn up a little
The term AGI had to be coined because the things they called AI weren’t actually AI. Artificial Intelligence originates from science fiction. It has no strict definition in computer science!
Maybe you learn up a little. Go read Isaac Asimov
We have the term AGI because we sometimes want to communicate something more specific, and AI is too broad of a term.
lol Again, you definitely know more than me
I always get such a kick reading comments from extremely overly confident people who know nothing about a topic that I’m an expert in, it’s really just peak social media entertainment
Please tell me you don’t actually think “AGI” is possible.
someone else:
theoretically, it is!
–sincerely, someone else.
Por que no los dos?
Because AI - in a very broad sense - is useful.
Machine Learning and the training and use of targeted, specialized inferential models is useful. LLMs and generative content models are not.
What! LLMs are extremely useful. They can already:
-Funnel wealth to the richest people -Create fake money to trade around -Deplete the world of natural resources -Make sure consumers cannot buy computer hardware -Poison the wells of online spaces with garbage content that takes 2s to generate and 2 minutes to read
Let’s not forget about traditional AI, which have served us well for so long that we stopped thinking of them as AI.
What?
As in, I agree with your point. I just want to give a shoutout to the non-ML-based AI.
In the strictest sense of the technical definition: all of what you are describing are algorithmic approaches that are only colloquially referred to as “AI”. Artificial Intelligence is still science fiction. “AI” as it’s being marketed and sold today is categorical snake oil. We are nowhere even close to having a Star Trek ship-wide computer with anything even approaching reliable, reproducible, and safe outputs and capabilities that are fit for purpose - much less anything even remotely akin to a Soong-type Android.
In the strictest sense there is no technical definition because it all depends on what is “intelligence”, which isn’t something we have an easy definition for. A thermostat learning when you want which temperature based on usage stats can absolutely fulfill some definitions of intelligence (perceiving information and adapting behaviour as a result), and is orders of magnitude less complex than neural networks.
I hate AI because it’s a waste of finite resources.
I hate it because it’s supported by a system of corruption and greed that is destroying the economy.
I hate it because all major AI vendors have supported or abetted criminals in circumventing democracy worldwide.
I hate it because it isn’t AI, it’s a LLM.
You’re confusing AI with AGI…
Speech to text is ai, llm’s are ai… But they’re not consciousAI helps fly planes when pilots lose consciousness.
AI helps surgeons perform microscopic surgery through robotic tools.
AI performs large algorithmic and logistically complex tasks based on a specific set of requirements to a detailed task.
These aren’t new concepts. These are technologies that have existed for the last 30-40 years.
Our definition of “AI” today has been muddled due to marketing manipulation.
LLMs are not AI. LLMs have existed for the last 20-30 years. I played with one in 2000. it was a sex chat bot. it literally did exactly the same things current LLMs do today except it emulates speech patterns better.
AGI is just another marketing word. Ignore it, it doesn’t exist.
A sex chat bot is ai.
Ai doesn’t mean it’s intelligent
LLM’S do a lot more than mimic speech patterns.
And I know AGI doesn’t existA sex chat bot is ai.
Ai doesn’t mean it’s intelligentbeing a human clearly doesn’t either.
Look up the definition of artificial intelligence, you fucking idiot
neural networks (“ai”) are really cool, and if i get around to messing around with one it probably would be fun. the problem is not the neural network itself, but every. single. thing. other than it
tried
bakingmaking your own ai, like, as a joke? you’ll know how bad “getting training data” is
