AI will not be achieved until we understand human intelligence.

AI will not be achieved until we understand human intelligence.

ChatGPT Wizard Shirt $21.68

Beware Cat Shirt $21.68

ChatGPT Wizard Shirt $21.68

  1. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Plausible

  2. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    just throw more "neurons" at the problem. Seemed to work for us

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Define neuron. No I will not take "node in a directed graph with an assigned weight vector" as an answer

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        A neuron, whether in biological organisms or artificial constructs, functions as a fundamental information-processing unit. In both contexts, it operates by transmitting signals through connections to other units, enabling the flow of information within a complex network. This basic unit plays a pivotal role in decision-making and information exchange within its system, contributing to the overall functionality of the larger structure.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous
    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >just throw more "neurons" at the problem. Seemed to work for us
      No, it didn't. The brain isn't just a pile of neurons. It consists of specialized structures. All the cool LLMs and diffusion models you use also aren't just straight ANNs but have somewhat elaborate architectures.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Decision Trees > Neural Networks
      >this kills the AI Pseud

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        How can AI trannies ever recover after reading this post? How many will make the decision to hang themselves from a tree?

  3. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    we'll use AI to understand it

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      This. It may be a cheat but we could get around it.

  4. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    AI was already achieved. Are you talking about AGI? maybe but we've achieved things we haven't fully understand before.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Like english

  5. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Indeed

  6. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    #1 anime of this season, followed by android girl in mars and ishura

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >#1 anime of this season
      based
      >followed by android girl in mars and ishura
      cringe

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Rough fricking the stupid mole rapist girl

  7. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Why would we need to understand human intelligence when we could just get AI to understand it for us?

  8. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Utena!

  9. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    OP you need to address your AGP with therapy before you try to solve the problem of AI.

  10. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    human intelligence is a myth

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      much noise itt, this is the only message with a serious philosophical underpinning.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        >my IQ is 80

  11. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    you don't need to understand human intelligence, you just need to make an architecture that doesn't have the pitfalls of the previous architecture, rinse, repeat.
    eventually you will run out pitfalls and it will look nothing like human intelligence.

  12. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Didn't believe this would get it's own anime, I'm impressed.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      there have been worse

  13. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    You should try and achieve intelligence since AI is extremely common and has been for over 2 decades.

  14. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    No and remember:
    Racism, sexism, makeup, and plastic surgery is living proof the human form is ugly.
    You could only prove me right.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Delusional pajeet

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      who fricking cares

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      not a single person in that picture looks attractive, photoshop and surgery only made them a different kind of unattractive

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        That's true but it took them from overtly disgusting to look at to weird-looking but tolerable.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          none of them are tolerable to look at tobetbh

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      You human form is ugly. Don't speak for real humans thanks.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        >ESL

  15. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    https://arxiv.org/abs/2106.05181

  16. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    It doesn't exist.
    We are all just saying what we think other people want to hear.
    We were language models all along.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >what we think other people want to hear
      frick you

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        I came

  17. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Flight will not be achieved until we understand bird wings

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      I mean you kinda peeked didn't you?

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      False equivalence, flight was understood to be moving through the air since forever. We still don't even really know what "thinking" is. There is no way to prove that anyone besides you exists, but you can pretty easily prove that birds are in the air and they need wings, even if you can't easily prove the physical principles behind it.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        >There is no way to prove that anyone besides you exists
        that's just masturbation.
        you aren't smart just because you propose endless amounts of unprovable bullshit.
        if you live in reality like the rest of us you would accept the notion of duck typing

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        >There is no way to prove that anyone besides you exists
        yeah there should be, theoretically. but you're not actually interested in that are you? you kinda like the spot, you'll actually fight against any way it could be proven, quite actively, to defend your cozy spot. innit?

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          Okay you fricking gorilla Black folk I misspoke, I meant there's no way to prove other people exist NOW, and I support looking into it. I'm just saying that designing intelligence is hard if we don't know what intelligence is. We knew what flight is even if we didn't get the details and so we could reverse engineer it. We do have an idea of what intelligence is but it's not as simple as brid go up in air

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        >There is no way to prove that anyone besides you exists
        >but you can pretty easily prove that birds are in the air and they need wings
        These two are contradictory, either our measurements of the world are just arbitrary to the observer(only you exist) or they're reality(you're an individual among many). We can measure if beings have an understanding of self and ability for creative problem solving.
        It also misses the point completely, I was alluding to the fact that humans found a different way to fly than birds, even though some thought that was impossible. We will probably find a different way to consciousness than biology did.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          >I was alluding to the fact that humans found a different way to fly than birds
          But what I'm saying is that we know that planes fly and birds fly by simple looking at them, while we don't know that intelligences are "intelligent" in the same way that we are by simply looking at them, and we currently have no way to do that. We can only reverse engineer a crude idea of intelligence, which could very well be leading us to real intelligence, but we have no way to verify that like we do with planes

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            You just setting up artificial barriers, humans have never had to actually understand anything properly to use it. It's all just models, and most engineering is done with grossly simplified models since they're actually mathematically solvable. For what we're doing in machine learning, the current measure for AGI is if the system can learn and solve any cognitive task better than a human. It doesn't matter if it's "actually" conscious, whatever that even means, if it can generalize across problems and solve them. We can't even agree on a definition of consciousness since it's an idea of philosophy, but we can measure if the machine beats you in math, humor, dating, engineering, learning, etc.

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              You're excruciatingly low-IQ. I'm pretty sure his point is that you can't know if you're dealing with actual intelligence or just an illusion of it if you keep going by vague subjective metrics, so until you have existing examples of intelligence figured out, you can't know if you're even going in the right direction with your attempts. For instance, the LLM fans are obviously going in the wrong direction and they either cannot or do not want to fathom it. They will probably spend decades deluding themselves that their statistical model is intelligent as they throw more and more data at it, training it to be better and better at fooling them.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        >flight was understood to be moving through the air since forever.
        why the frick did people even attempt to make flapping contractions then?
        if it was so obvious, they would have realized birds flap their wings like 9000 times per millisecond and that trying to force a human to do the same, no matter how complicated the cope contraption, was fricking pointless

        understanding something does not equal dominating something

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          If his point is a bird, then your head is your head.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >Flight will not be achieved until we understand bird wings
      Flight was achieved when the underlying physical principles were understood. Principles that are many orders of magnitude simpler and easier to experiment with.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Not implying intelligence is as easy as flight, just that it was thought we had to understand bird wing mechanics to do it.
        We picked a very different architecture after iterating over several, where some tried copying birds, how is that much different in principle from building an ass load of different function estimators until one of them starts giving us solutions to problems.

        You're excruciatingly low-IQ. I'm pretty sure his point is that you can't know if you're dealing with actual intelligence or just an illusion of it if you keep going by vague subjective metrics, so until you have existing examples of intelligence figured out, you can't know if you're even going in the right direction with your attempts. For instance, the LLM fans are obviously going in the wrong direction and they either cannot or do not want to fathom it. They will probably spend decades deluding themselves that their statistical model is intelligent as they throw more and more data at it, training it to be better and better at fooling them.

        >I'm pretty sure his point is that you can't know if you're dealing with actual intelligence or just an illusion of it
        I know, but it's irrelevant. Does it matter if the black box is actually intelligent when it designs novel semiconductor layouts or drugs? No, not at all, you still arrive at the same result.
        How the frick is it vague or subjective to test if a system can beat the best human experts at various tasks? If it is better, it wins, the same way humans are tested to figure out who's the best in a certain field. I think the world is all ears if you have a better way of testing superior intelligence than doing cognitive tasks better than others.
        LLMs and Diffusion models in their current form aren't AGI, but if you compare them to the absolute dog shit models we had 10 years ago it should be clear we're going in the direction of more capability.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          >Not implying intelligence is as easy as flight, just that it was thought we had to understand bird wing mechanics to do it.
          What does it actually have to do with OP's point, beyond matching the same linguistic template? Nothing. It's crazy how automatonistic your whole crew is. I can see how you arrivded at this total nonsequitur: you started form a standardized corporate zinger ("they said the Wright brothers couldn't fly, luddite!!!"), saw that the situation doesn't quite fit this preprogrammed template and modified it ever so slightly into something superficially more related.

          >I know, but it's irrelevant.
          It's relevant and I've proven it in the very post you are replying to. Stop shitting out corporate zingers and try again.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Must be great to have the whole world and everyone in it figured out.

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              Must be great to be a simplistic automaton, but my point and I assume this is also what OP was getting at) still stands: you can't know how far along you are in the process of building an airplane if you can never tell objectively if you've gotten a single inch off the ground.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          >How the frick is it vague or subjective to test if a system can beat the best human experts at various tasks? If it is better, it wins
          This is a test of automation viability, not a test of a system's intelligence. If you want to talk about automation, just talk about automation.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            I fail to see why there would be a meaningful separation of intelligence and task solving, humans solve tasks with our intelligence, if a single system can solve any task better than any human, it must have a more general and precise world model than humans. Capacity to solve problems is generally how intelligence is defined, maybe you define it differently and if so, please clarify.

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              >if a single system can solve any task better than any human
              And how are you going to build this magical sci-fi system can that solve ANY task better than ANY human if you have no idea what the fundamental requirements for such a system are and whether or not you're on the right track to implementing them?

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                ummm sweaty? just two more weeks, two thousand more layers, two trillion more parameters, two quadrillion more terrabytes of your data, two more decades of compute time, two quintillion more terrawatts of power... two more weeks and matrix multiplication will become a viable solution to every problem a human has ever faced and will ever face

  18. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    She's so dumpy and a loser. God I want to be whipped by a dumpy nerdy sadistic girl so bad.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      I want to cum in her moronic hair

  19. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    fake it till you make it

  20. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    use the AI to figure intelligence?

  21. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    I think you mean consciousness since we understand intelligence pretty well even with the field being handicapped and scared of admitting biological realities

  22. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >AI will not be achieved until we understand human intelligence.
    Humans are not intelligent.

  23. 2 months ago
    Anonymous
  24. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Rust is not a good programming language and children should not be exposed to transgender propaganda.

  25. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Humans are stupid, self-destructive, rodent hybrids of an even higher lifeform.
    Frick em. Frick you.

  26. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Education facilities already understand that quite exceptionally well.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *