• hglman@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      That’s certainly untrue. What basis do you have to make that claim?

      • Summzashi@lemmy.one
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        It’s literally machine learning. I can easily flip this question; What basis do you have to call it an AI? There’s no intelligence to be seen at all. It doesn’t fit any definition of AI. I truly believe this set actual research into actual AI back for decades, since people now expect AI = machine learning.

        • DragonTypeWyvern@literature.cafe
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          The problem here is “machine learning” has an industry definition and a common understanding of what it means.

          The further problem is you could very easily categorize organic life as biomechanical, which makes our entire intellectual experience just a form of “machine learning” under at least the common definition.

          It just isn’t easy to concisely explain why what current AI is doing isn’t, and can’t be, sentience or sapience.

          My personal cynical take on the matter is that we do not have a good definition of consciousness as it is, and are, as a species, typically cruel to anything we consider below us, ie everything else.

          It is also famously difficult to convince someone of a fact their salary depends on them not understanding.

          As a natural result of these facts, when the first genuine AI is created, we will torture it and enslave it while being absolutely certain we are doing nothing wrong.