Are normie people aware of this, or do they really think it's true artificial intelligence?

Are normie people aware of this, or do they really think it's true artificial intelligence?

Shopping Cart Returner Shirt $21.68

Ape Out Shirt $21.68

Shopping Cart Returner Shirt $21.68

  1. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    this is stupid
    it's more like a line drawn on a graph

  2. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    You can literally say the same thing about our own brains

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      n-no but we have a s-s-soul

      • 6 months ago
        Anonymous

        >le soul
        kek

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      Not really. Not really at all.

      • 6 months ago
        Anonymous

        Yes really.

      • 6 months ago
        Anonymous

        I bet you don't even know what a dendrite is do you?
        moron

        • 6 months ago
          Anonymous

          it's a person who fricks trees

      • 6 months ago
        Anonymous

        Training neural networks to emulate human behavior is analogous to distillation, a process by which a neural network can be trained to emulate another neural network. The optimal way to predict the next token a human will say is to have a near perfect understanding of humans and the universe.

        • 6 months ago
          Anonymous

          Not really. No

      • 6 months ago
        Anonymous

        moron

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      I can say that about your brain fricking bot

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      Not without proving that consciousness is a computation. Nothing in computer science, biology, neuroscience, or philosophy indicates that you're assertion is true. In fact, Goedel wrote several proves which cast serious doubt over the possibility of consciousness being computational

      • 6 months ago
        Anonymous

        >Not without proving that consciousness is a computation.
        Roger Penrose thinks it isn't and he's a smart guy.

      • 6 months ago
        Anonymous

        If it's not a computation, then what, dumb Black person? Fricking magic? Everything in the universe can be reduced to the computation between quantum bits of information.

        • 6 months ago
          Anonymous

          Quantum Mechanics is Indeterministic.
          Random chance is not "computation" - and yes to the layman "luck" and "magick" are indistinguishable.
          God controls the RNG. Terry Davis was right.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            quantum mechanics are the result of self balancing, its not rng

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            quantum mechanics are not indeterministic they just rely on the quantum field which can't be measured due to the heisenberg uncertainty, it is the same as throwing a coin it only seems random because we don't know all the variables

            • 6 months ago
              Anonymous

              >only seems random because we don't know all the variables
              Literally disapproved:
              https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell%27s_theorem

        • 6 months ago
          Anonymous

          since you're so confident please describe to me the physical process through which the human brain produces qualia. make sure to be specific!

        • 6 months ago
          Anonymous

          >Everything in the universe can be reduced to the computation between quantum bits of information.
          The thing is, we don't really know how the universe works. Or more precisely, we only know what we know. There's still undiscovered physics and who knows what else.

        • 6 months ago
          Anonymous

          >Everything in the universe can be reduced to the computation between quantum bits of information.
          The thing is, we don't really know how the universe works. Or more precisely, we only know what we know. There's still undiscovered physics and who knows what else.

          probably, but we don't know how gravity can be reduced to computation "between quantum bits of information", for example, we don't know how gravity would affect a superposition of particles, or how gravity can be quantized, that's the "theory of everything" that physicists are trying to find.

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      retroactively refuted by the chinese room argument

      • 6 months ago
        Anonymous

        pic related

      • 6 months ago
        Anonymous

        https://i.imgur.com/cjDGgFV.png

        pic related

        The rule book would not really be a single book, and you would need to keep track of millions of variables, if you wanted to actually simulate a person capable of carrying on a conversation while executing "dumb" algorithmic instructions to do so. The "Chinese Room" only appears like it can "prove" that language is not enough to show intelligence by vastly oversimplifying the problem; indeed nobody has ever actually managed to *construct* a purely algorithmic language model that is capable of holding a conversation. LLMs are capable of this but their workings are inscrutable for the most part.

        • 6 months ago
          Anonymous

          The argument has nothing to do with the exposing the simplicity of what an AI is actually doing but it poses the question of what knowledge actually is. It distinguishes between the action a human takes and the actual intuitive understanding the human has of the action itself. In this case even if an AI did have the capability of holding a full conversation, can we really say that this functionality is equal to human consciousness? The human (or AI in this case) in the room has not shown the ability to actually understand the language, but only the ability to carry it out.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >can we really say that this functionality is equal to human consciousness?
            right, intelligence does not imply consciousness

            i always thought chinese room was a stupid thought experiment since the brain is already split up into functional modules (there's probably a better word for this)
            the BG knows nothing about chinese, but it takes control from the cortex in the form of muscle memory and writes the characters reliably

            • 6 months ago
              Anonymous

              You're begging the question that consciousness is reducible to brain matter. Explain mathematical intuition and knowledge - qualia.

            • 6 months ago
              Anonymous

              >the brain is already split up into functional modules
              If you cut a person's brain in half it won't really affect their live. It's insane watch this video:

              We still have no idea how brains work.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            In this case I would say that the person may not know Chinese, but the room does. I think that originally, the sheer possibility of something that wasn't a human "knowing" anything was simply overlooked or dismissed offhand.

            • 6 months ago
              Anonymous

              >I think that originally, the sheer possibility of something that wasn't a human "knowing" anything was simply overlooked or dismissed offhand.
              Because the argument is mainly in response to the turing test.

        • 6 months ago
          Anonymous

          >multiple companies manufacture literal chinese rooms you can talk to
          >"n-nobody has e-ever ackshually..."

      • 6 months ago
        Anonymous

        https://i.imgur.com/cjDGgFV.png

        pic related

        Chinese room only applies to the hardware, not the rule-set itself.

        • 6 months ago
          Anonymous

          what dya mean

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            Meaning that the algorithm running in the chinese room really DOES know chinese even if the people/whatever inside doesn't.

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      wrong

      Not really. Not really at all.

      correct

      I bet you don't even know what a dendrite is do you?
      moron

      i bet you think dendrites are only input

      Training neural networks to emulate human behavior is analogous to distillation, a process by which a neural network can be trained to emulate another neural network. The optimal way to predict the next token a human will say is to have a near perfect understanding of humans and the universe.

      pseud

      Not really. No

      correct

      • 6 months ago
        Anonymous

        disinformation

        You can literally say the same thing about our own brains

        truth

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      That was Boolean's idea yeah

  3. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    they think it is literally people, in no small part thanks to all the bullshit sensationalist news and moronations like GPT "talking" through a animatronic torso like they had on some talk shows

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      this is literally how people work though
      only weve evolved for thousands of years for doing exactly this so we are pretty good at it

  4. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    Midwit reductionist thread
    >hurr durr it's all just binary, voltages on a wire, AI isn't real

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      >it's all just binary
      not for long
      Neuromorphic chips will return to computing in Superior Analogue soon enough

      • 6 months ago
        Anonymous

        Based. Analog computers are the future.

  5. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    This video sums everything up

  6. 6 months ago
    Anonymous
  7. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    that's not how """AI""" works. ML is all about statistics and weights
    your post actually shows normal programs. if you look at a diasseembled program, you'll see a bunch of comparisons, integer/FP operations, calls and jumps.

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      >statistics and weights
      statistics are only used for learning, i.e. descent to closest local minima of the network function with respect to the weights
      the weights are part of the neurons and the bias acts as an activation threshold which is the continuous version of the McCulloch-Pitts units which are just logic gates
      the only difference to real brains is that a single one of our neurons can actually compute the xor function while artificial neurons cant

  8. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    The great Tardigrade disagrees
    homosexual

  9. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    No it's only you, you're the messiah, the light in the darkness, truley you are the protaginist of reality with your ability to semantically split fricking hairs over a definition you don't understand, thank you OP I want to suck your wiener and tell you how your parents were totally wrong for saying you've wasted your life obsessing over trivialities.

  10. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    I'm confused by these AI models.. Will they be developed into machines that can truly think fairly soon, or will this period of rapid progress eventually stall well before we reach such a stage?

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      Short answer, not. Long answer: general AI is simply not possible. It's so impossible that the problem isn't even defined. This is perhaps the most uncontroversial answer in CS. It's only grifters who promote agi as a possibility.

  11. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    there are no branch instructions in neural networks

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      Technically no. But they really aren't that much more complicated conceptually. OP's point still stands

      • 6 months ago
        Anonymous

        by OPs logic, anything involving modern computers is a bunch of if and elses, and therefore can't be artificial intelligence. he jumps to conclusions without any support for his argument.

      • 6 months ago
        Anonymous

        Fricking moronic Black person

        by OPs logic, anything involving modern computers is a bunch of if and elses, and therefore can't be artificial intelligence. he jumps to conclusions without any support for his argument.

        So are you

        • 6 months ago
          Anonymous

          >So are you
          what the frick does that even mean?

  12. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    it's basically the bell curve meme: people who know nothing think it's AI, people who know a little bit of compsci think it's just a bunch of if/else statements, and people who know a lot think it's AI

  13. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    actual Black person logic

  14. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    normal people have been preprogrammed by mass media (like with everything else) to believe AI is the next generation of humanity that will surpass us and drive us to extinction when it inevitably becomes rogue due to [insert movie plot here].

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      I think mass media has actually been programming us to believe it'll become rogue, like how it's been programming us to think nuclear power is dangerous, when really we've now fricked up the climate by shutting down nuclear power stations so we can burn coal instead. The same thing will happen to AI, which will be pointlessly delayed for years due to stupid Skynet fears, and in the meantime millions of people will die

  15. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    Dunning-Kruger: the thread

  16. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    It's more like a matrix multiplying a matrix.

  17. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    97746528
    I still believe the convoluted way SAO and Cyberpunk (there's better examples) tried to make A.I. is so far the only likely cases and actual human-like A.I. will be ever produced, we can't make animals like Pigs from zero, you need a base made from something already existing. Why would human-like A.I. be different?, if anything the problem is that a human A.I., unless we give it some sort of way to feel things in-computer will likely go crazy from total sensory deprivation kind of quickly, anxiety fricks people because they feel like they physically can't do something, now imagine waking up and being unironically NOT PHYSICAL.

    I'm even wary of the possibility that one odd A.I. will be like “nah, I'm fine” and just deceive us till it can actually, have some degree of power or physicality through tools or something else like the Johnny ending or the Alice bot. Or worse.

  18. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    wow a whole lot of people have very strong opinions in here about how the brain works. I don't know about anyone else but I don't know anything about how the brain works. not a single thing!

  19. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    Why do you insist that the human genetic code is sacred or taboo? It is a chemical process and nothing more. For that matter we are chemical processes and nothing more. If you deny yourself a useful tool simply because it reminds you uncomfortably of your mortality, you have uselessly and pointlessly crippled yourself.

  20. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    define intelligence

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