At Open Source Summit Japan, Linux and Git creator Linus Torvalds talked about Rust in Linux, Linux maintainer fatigue, and AI’s future role in Linux and open-source development.

  • 1984@lemmy.today
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    27
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    1 year ago

    It’s not intelligent because it’s not thinking.

    At least my definition of intelligence is thinking. Otherwise a simple pattern matching algorithm like a regexp is also intelligent, or a sorting algorithm that puts things in the right order.

    But I agree it’s very efficient and has more data than any single person ever could. It’s a computer, they are great at storing and processing information.

    • Coldus12@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      While I mostly agree, I’d like to point out that GOFAI (good old fashioned AI) exists, and at its core it is basically just pathfinding like a* or something similar. And we still call that AI, because it “intelligently” finds a path quickly.

      So my main point is that I agree that it isn’t magic or sapient or anything, but in a sense it is definitely intelligent.

    • cybersandwich@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I’ve heard the argument that we don’t really have a good definition of thinking or intelligence and if it can complete a task or do things…what does it matter if it’s “thinking” or not if the outcome is the same.

    • netwren@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      I think the defenders of human intellect are heralding our language and thinking to be a much higher standard than for MOST people they are.

      A chess champion might be executing critical thinking beyond normal comprehension but I’d say a lot of my interactions with others, my daily experience is just pattern matching the next thing to say or ask.

      • voluble@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        I think this type of anthropocentrism extends to chess too actually. I’m not an expert on the subject, but I’ve heard that chess AIs are finding success doing unintuitive things like pushing a and h file pawns in openings. If, 10 years ago, some chess grandmaster was doing the same thing and finding success, I imagine they would have been seen as creative, maybe even groundbreaking.

        I think the average person under-rates the sophistication of AI. Maybe as a response to the AI hype. Maybe it’s because we’re scared of AI, and it’s comforting to believe that it’s operations are trivial. I see irrationality and anger cropping up in discussions of AI that I think stem from a fundamental fear of its transformative power.

        • 1984@lemmy.today
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          Yes it’s going to transform everything. It’s about the same as the transformation from typewriter to computer for society. But I still don’t think any machine that predicts the next word is intelligent. However, this is only the beginning. We are not going to be able to keep up with AI soon, and it will work around the clock to get better and better.

          We will have those high tech societies from the movies where robots are everywhere and people are quite sad.

          • netwren@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            You say that however we might have stumbled on the groundwork for a GI. Because language is core to our evolutionary advancement. We needed language to build the mental constructs that then enabled logical work.

            Imagine if an LLM was able to coordinate the usage of these “logical” AI’s like Deep mind etc.

            ChatGPT already enabled Internet search and it’s better than if I asked someone to Google something for me.

    • Semperverus@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      13
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Bro the AI neural networks have been shown to be building internal world models to be able to do what they do. How is that not thinking?

      I am so sick of this anthrocentrism, as if we are special because we are humans. The computers are now doing the same mathematical processes our brains are doing. The LLMs can be compared to a small subsection of our brains. String enough neural network based AIs together with different tasks and youll get sentience.

      Sentience isnt required for “thinking” to happen, thinking is one of the building blocks for sentience.