1710
The reason is simple. It's because fuck you. (discuss.online)
submitted 2 weeks ago by to c/fuck_ai@lemmy.world
174 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 3 points 2 weeks ago (1 child)

Its a slopper who wants to project these spreadsheets as 'conscious' when what's happening is they're essentially being transcoded into statistical models.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 5 points 2 weeks ago (1 child)

    Yup. Give a Markov chain multi-billion parameters and you can get some surprisingly cogent results.

    I will freely admit that current LLM architectures include several innovations that make them not actually Markov chains, but it's still statistics and linear algebra. I don't know what thought is, but I'm quite unconvinced that LLMs (or any current generative AI architecture) is doing it.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

    I don’t know what thought is, but I’m quite unconvinced that LLMs (or any current generative AI architecture) is doing it.

    Okay, why not? I also don't know what thought is, so I don't think it's possible to say if an LLM is or is not doing it. And giving wrong or incoherent answers doesn't invalidate it as thought or your local stoner buddy would be considered brain dead.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 6 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

    I've not seen evidence of it in any of my interactions with generative AI, which have pretty universally been bad. I feel like it has something to do with autonomous spontaneity. I recognize it in animals I can't communicate well with, but I found it lacking in the LLM that I tried to play a TTRPG with. It would be easier for me to be convinced, if I really had a better understanding of what thought is. It's hard for me to be convinced because while I understand LLMs and diffusion networks better than most people*, I don't think I understand thought so I recognize the gap.

    Also I'm not sure I agree with your final assertion, the stoner buddy is plenty wrong, but there is a coherency there. When coherency disappears entirely from human thought that's usually a seizure or stroke. Even as confusing as they are dreams and acid trips often have a coherency while you are in them, if not one that's easily described when recalling the experience.

    *: My formal AI training ended before big data met ML, so it's woefully out of date. I am quite the computer geek tho, it's just my passion tends toward languages, type systems, and proof assistants. So, better than most, but not an expert by any means.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] -1 points 2 weeks ago*

    Nah. Shut the fuck up slopper. If you're going to insult us and then ask chatgpt to win the argument, which you always do and it always misses the point, I'm not going to answer your question.

    The fact is these systems can do what a lot of humans do. That's not because the matrix multiplication is identical to thinking, but because most of these humans have never thought in their lives, do not have interiority, and are not people in any way that matters. Prove you're conscious if you want me to address you as such, fucking slopper.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent