I think AI is neat.

  • Redacted@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Have you ever considered you might be, you know, wrong?

    No sorry you’re definitely 100% correct. You hold a well-reasoned, evidenced scientific opinion, you just haven’t found the right node yet.

    Perhaps a mental gymnastics node would suit sir better? One without all us laymen and tech bros clogging up the place.

    Or you could create your own instance populated by AIs where you can debate them about the origins of consciousness until androids dream of electric sheep?

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

        You obviously have hate issues

        Says the person who starts chucking out insults the second they get downvoted.

        From what I gather, anyone that disagrees with you is a tech bro with issues, which is quite pathetic to the point that it barely warrants a response but here goes…

        I think I understand your viewpoint. You like playing around with AI models and have bought into the hype so much that you’ve completely failed to consider their limitations.

        People do understand how they work; it’s clever mathematics. The tech is amazing and will no doubt bring numerous positive applications for humanity, but there’s no need to go around making outlandish claims like they understand or reason in the same way living beings do.

        You consider intelligence to be nothing more than parroting which is, quite frankly, dangerous thinking and says a lot about your reductionist worldview.

        You may redefine the word “understanding” and attribute it to an algorithm if you wish, but myself and others are allowed to disagree. No rigorous evidence currently exists that we can replicate any aspect of consciousness using a neural network alone.

        You say pessimistic, I say realistic.

          • Redacted@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Once again not offering any sort of valid retort, just claiming anyone that disagrees with you doesn’t understand the field.

            I suggest you take a cursory look at how to argue in good faith, learn some maths and maybe look into how neural networks are developed. Then study some neuroscience and how much we comprehend the brain and maybe then we can resume the discussion.

              • Redacted@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                11 months ago

                You don’t really have one lol. You’ve read too many pop-sci articles from AI proponents and haven’t understood any of the underlying tech.

                All your retorts boil down to copying my arguments because you seem to be incapable of original thought. Therefore it’s not surprising you believe neural networks are approaching sentience and consider imitation to be the same as intelligence.

                You seem to think there’s something mystical about neural networks but there is not, just layers of complexity that are difficult for humans to unpick.

                You argue like a religious zealot or Trump supporter because at this point it seems you don’t understand basic logic or how the scientific method works.