>turns out ai isn't intelligent at all

if i slap the shit out of a 4 yo he realises what happened without ever being told or given an exterior input, he has senses and an "idea" of his "self" and "others" and "emotions"
if i plug and unplug or bash a computer with a bat it would never react to said agression unless i go on my way to TRAIN it to have a certain reaction in case of such event, even a newborn cat has more consciousness than glorified autocomplete

>If he was taught the entire time that getting your shit slapped was the norm he wouldn't care, would he?

>a 4 yo wouldn't have a reaction to pain because he was taught it's the norm
You're absolutely moronic its not even funny
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Harlow
even a monkey has more self awareness than you and glorified autcomplete

You're literally running circles because there's always a reaction to pain anyways that is startled without conditioning, what comes after that and the pain tolerance training is another debate, AI can't have such reactions without being told or taught in the first place
please embarass yourslef no further

This is you

The human brain is much more than a self-organizing machine. The current AI fever is as moronic as when people figured out clockwork and truly believed they could make intelligent automata with many cogs and springs

We can, but we need to unlock the tech tree that is able to interact with life. Like a machine that can be powered by blood cells, or that can "eat" and repair itself.

Imagine an alien race dropped a computer in the 1700s to a very good clock maker. He was so confident that he could make everything with his cogs and springs. Eventually he would realize that what he was seeing was something else entirelly, it was not the same language. Biology is the alien tech that was dropped.

Next time you go out pay attention to the smallest insects and birds flying about with perfectiin, making no noise for their entire life. While the primitive noisy drones we make stand out like a sore thumb

>You're subtly undermining your own position. You could, in principle, make a computer using "cogs and springs
No no, you got it. The man could build a large clockwork machine that computes. And he could make it larger and larger, find ways to make it spin faster and faster, but it would never reach right? He'd think for a moment he's in the right track, he can make this bigger and faster, but can't get close to the performance of the tiny chip. It's obvious why.

We can make these LLMs as big as they want or as fast as possible. A self driving car using it won't ever rival the spacial awareness of a bird that can fit in my hand.

Think for a moment, really think about it. Your own body produces energy. Enough that on a single meal you can go up and down a mountain. Why can't I hold my phone and have it be powered by this very energy? What is the tech that is missing? Step by step what do we need to unlock to have this work? When you can answer this question easily I'll believe you're close to recreating a mind

>Terrible lack of imagination in you
More like a dose of realism and awareness with less social media brainrot, always remember that companies especially tech ones have products to sell, don't be a moron and believe their words

i just don't think numbers can be intelligent

which number do you think will be equivalent to a human brain? that's what you're arguing. software is just numbers so there must be some number you believe is equivalent to the human brain

what are you talking about? software is numbers, literally, it's bit strings. inputs are bit strings, outputs are bit strings. it's all just binary arithmetic and you somehow believe bit string arithmetic is intelligent. that's a form of insanity

are numbers*

Go ahead and refute anything I wrote. You can't. Too bad.

Do you believe there is other intelligent life in the universe?

Yes you do but it would hurt your argument so you'll play coy. It's okay anon, checkmate

>I think 'yes' is a safer bet
Nobody here is gambling anon, we're discussing. So you think Yes, there is more likely to be intelligent universe in the life than not. Based on what?

>I think 'yes' is a bit more likely than 'no'
Why?

>No solid reason. It just seems counter-intuitive that this one spot in the universe would be unique.
Yet you have solid reason to believe that the entirety of human ingenuity forever and always will be incapable of creating intelligent life?

>we already know this universe is capable of producing and sustaining life. We don't know that human ingenuity is capable of producing genuine artificial intellect.
Okay, so you're a maybe on the idea of humanity creating genuine artificial intelligence. I think just as the universe is big, the future is long and unless humanity itself is wiped out it will be inevitable

>Won't be a fricking LLM is all I'm telling you, nor any fixed-function neural net.
That's fine, some of the greatest inventions were entirely accidental

software is bitstrings. explain how bitstrings can be intelligent when everything you can do with a computer i can also do on an abacus

>when everything you can do with a computer i can also do on an abacus
Show me a movie played solely with a single abacus

Are you saying you can't show me a movie played solely on a single abacus? I can play a movie with my computer

>when everything you can do with a computer i can also do on an abacus
>erm... except that!

> turn the result into paintings
Using only an abacus still? Does an abacus double as a paint brush or are you suddenly needing to introduce a whole herd of brand new elements to make your case?

>Watch netflix with you? Heh, no need, Ive already calculated the events in my head. Hm..... perhaps a little more sodium chloride on the popcorn next time tutz.

checkmate atheists. abacus supremacy foreva

decoding the bit string for the movie and turning it into operations on the screen is a mechanical process with bit strings. i can emulate the whole thing with an abacus. in fact. i can make the abacus big enough so that red, green and blue beads generate the image as i decode the bit string for the movie so i don't even need to imagine it.

anyway, this is getting tiresome. computers can't think. numbers are not intelligent. numerology is not AI

u jelly?

i already said it wouldn't be practically but theoretically there is nothing wrong with what i said. it's all just mechanical arithmetic with bit strings

as long as you understand the equivalence with abacus and computers my job here is done

i presented the argument and you declared victory which seems a bit moronic to me because you didn't refute anything i said

i said it wouldn't be practical. the theory is sound. whatever you can do on your computer i can do an an abacus

i don't think you understand what in theory means. it means a computer, no matter how complicated and "fast" is still just doing arithmetic which can be done on an abacus. the practical part is the speed but the theory is sound. there is nothing you can do on a computer that doesn't have an equivalent implementation on an abacus

i don't know where you got that. my argument has been the same throughout the entire thread. computers do arithmetic, nothing more. there is no magic in the computer other than arithmetic and arithmetic is not intelligence no matter how "fast" it's done

>Show me a movie played solely with a single abacus
show me a movie that's not a bit string on a hard drive

rekt
btfo
good day sir

Its a movie that not a bit string on a hard drive.

Indeed it is, but you can go to a physical projector, and see a movie using completely analog technology, with no bitstrings at all!

>you can run computer programs on an abacus too
>an abacus
Do you believe an abacus is a number?

But your claim was that a program was purely numbers, the only element in a program is numbers but you also can't run a program using just numbers

Then a program is not just numbers. There is an additional element to it. A brain is not just a single element, there is more to it. To claim that intelligent life can't take digital form because you demand the only aspect it can include is numbers is silly

Let me know when you manage to create a program using only numbers

>computer
>abacus
Two things that are not numbers, anon.

he destroyed you bro. everything he mentioned is all about technical shortcomings of pretending that arithmetic is intelligence

>No no, you got it. The man could build a large clockwork machine that computes. And he could make it larger and larger, find ways to make it spin faster and faster, but it would never reach right? He'd think for a moment he's in the right track, he can make this bigger and faster, but can't get close to the performance of the tiny chip. It's obvious why.
>We can make these LLMs as big as they want or as fast as possible. A self driving car using it won't ever rival the spacial awareness of a bird that can fit in my hand.
He would still have something he could rightly called a computer, and in theory, he could keep building it up indefinitely. An LLM cannot be called a mind, and it could never become a mind no matter how much computing power, actual or theoretical, you kept throwing at it. The most you can get, theoretically, is a perfect model of current knowledge, current concepts and current ways of thinking. If you trained an LLM using nothing but the writings and musings of medieval people, you would never get anything that sounds like modern reasoning out of it, not even with infinite compute. This is an actual argument you can use. You're just appealing to some vague intuitions and romantic notions, on the other hand. Even though I ultimately agree with you. Biology and digital computing have fundamentally different properties.

>The current AI fever is as moronic as when people figured out clockwork and truly believed they could make intelligent automata with many cogs and springs
Try telling the people what the mechanical calculator would turn in to and they would also call you moronic and fantastical

>making no noise for their entire life
Do they not have hummingbirds in Favelia?

What did it turn into? An electric calculator?

Something capable of simulating an entire universe as well as seamless global communication

fiction is real in my head
Right? Could you imagine a world where you can hit little buttons with your fingers to instantly turn those inputs in to readable text, and then transmit that text via a series of thin cables that spiderweb across the entire globe? How kooky!

>But you were mumbling something about simulating the entire universe
Go ahead and give Copernicus a computer with Space Engine on it

I do like this argument, it ties up the ideas quite neatly and so anything I say beyond this point is purely speculative of technology, and doesn't have a basis in proven reality
"Natural" intelligence has evolved through complex chemistry as a necessity rather than an optimsation. We don't know the origin of life, but it is bound by the fundamental need to self replicate and hence has optimised functions around this ability. A computer as we know it today would not be able to evolve (ignorning the teleological argument here), and requires a creator (us) to govern its development. A consequence of this, is removing the condition of adapting developments for self replication, and instead optimising for computational accuracy and speed. The body is limited in many cases to the speed of chemical reactions for processing power, and this is something we can see with current nueroscience knowledge. A modern computer however is limited by the speed of free flowing electron drift. It would conclude then, that both circuits running side by side would have a hugely different computation speed. The issue comes when we question whether the brain is a binary or anologue calculator, which in the future may be solved with quantum computing. So from this purely speculative approach it would favour the development of computational intelligence
I realise I sound ridiculous writing all this, but I'm bored and this is fun to think about

What I meant to say is you’re all fricking moronic.

You not only have to prove that a soul exists, you also have to prove a machine can't have one

You want humanity to be special, but the reality is that we are not.

I love hearing atheists saying they need scientific proof of religion, spiritualism and an intelligent creator. Then in the next breath parallel universes. Life is a simulation. And artificial intelligence is real intelligence. The cognitive dissonance is astounding, I call it faith based sciencing. LOL.

You can see how it degraded. Mr wizard, watch mr wizard, beakmans world and bill nye. The fundamentals were the same but the delivery is reminiscent of Idiocracy time passing.

capcha: H0AR

AI is still in its infancy, neuroscience arguably even more so. It would be impossible to guess how long this will take. Even if the technology is created, it would be unbelievably difficult to verify that the produced result is "self aware" given we are limited by our understanding of what that means in the first place. There would have to be significant breakthroughs in neuroscience before we could validate an AGI. But I'm just some moron on pol so don't take my word for it

Probably not in our lifetimes. For neuro scientists the brain is still the biggest mystery there is. You'll see cures to major life threatening illnesses before people will have figured out the brain. The amount of medical breakthroughs it could bring would be truly incredible.

The human brain is much more than a self-organizing machine. The current AI fever is as moronic as when people figured out clockwork and truly believed they could make intelligent automata with many cogs and springs

This will always repeat itself. As soon as people figured out how to input algorithms into machines and get an output return people started trying to feed it many algorithms together. Thinking that if you string together a lot of statements and algorithms you get an artificial intelligence. "Expert systems" was what they were called at the time. It didn't live up to its expectations since the problem of the exponentially increasing if else statements was never solved, anything using this pattern will be inefficient once it gets large.

I do think LLM's are incredible in how they handled interpreting human language and linking it to an output of a vast unlabeled knowledge base. Before people were using large knowledge bases where prompt or responses would lead you down one of the possible responses of the knowledge base.

Black person, if you're telling me it's not possible to have a general application with multiple threads in functional programming you're just plain old fricking stupid.

And it can reorganize itself, stupid. Black person, you're plain old moronic. There are several applications written in pure functional programming that "reorganize themselves" you fricking moron.

It means you're to dumb to get it and I won't waste my time.

Chess in functional programming for example. How do you think it gets the next move? It reorganizes itself depending on the current state of the board. Fricking Black person, don't pretend you understand AI or programming, if you have to ask that.

a classic chess engine*

I know how a chess engine works because I've programmed them myself, vile Black person ape. The algorithm is a fixed function. You put in the same input, you get the same output, every time. Nothing gets "reorganized".

The thing is that mentally ill subhumans like you hallucinate knowledge they don't have, exactly like the mindless bots they worship, and you fundamentally lack the wetware to reflect on your level of knowledge or realize your mistakes. You legit need to be put down or at least sterilized. Truly disgusting subhuman waste.

It still gives you the same outputs for the same inputs, dumb Black person ape. It's especially funny how you can't grasp it in the case of a chess engine, when the best possible move for a given position obviously doesn't change.

You're even dumber that I thought. Chess engines don't store all possibilities. They have heuristics because there are too many moves.

But say your brain is in the exact same state, and receives the exact same input. How do you know it's not going to do the exact same thing?

You're too focused in "reorganizing" and don't even know what that means.

Lmao and you think it's impossible because? Because you said so? The only limited intelligence I see here is yours.

Enough, you don't even get that it is possible to change a program depending on state, same as a brain. You're too limited, you would never understand physics, or anything too abstract. You think too much on "your real world" to understand such things.

Ima defend the Moortuguese even though he's gay and moronic.

1. Implement an interpreter in a functional language (text -> tokens -> ast -> recursion on ast)
2. Create infinite recursing function that: creates a new modified ast, executes it

You have a self modifiable (extremely inneficient) program

>I was actually expecting him to try to go down this route but he's too disabled for this. Anyway, this is pretty moot. Now you just have a fixed function that simulates a machine that executes self-modifying programs. The function isn't "reorganizing itself"
It's a bit of a stretch, but what if the language you're implementing is your own self-hosted language, then the program would be modyfing itself. Many functional languages are self-hosted. Anyway even if the function was not modifying itself it could perfectly simulate it's own modification because of turing completeness.

Anyway, if you want to write self-modifying code you should just use assembly

The human brain is much more than a self-organizing machine. The current AI fever is as moronic as when people figured out clockwork and truly believed they could make intelligent automata with many cogs and springs

Sneed

Functional programming languages let you cheat by calling a pure function recursively and storing mutable state in the parameters. Then it's equivalent to an imperative language.

>Another stupid. And how does it pretrain?
Not while in operation.

You said that while generating a reply to text it does a google like search of many sources. That's not true.

i dont want to leave its my website
why dont you leave for awhile
yes i think you should leave
ban him

i dont need to explain my reasons to you or anyone
i never did
it only ever happened as a courtesy

>My brain isnt a bit string
>2 posts later
>Everything is a bit string if it can be represented by one!
You seem to be confused anon, maybe you should lie down.

yeah but you didn't prove that the brain is a turing machine still which was your original failure, you just talked in circles again

oh so you think that's a turing machine weird
life is inputs and outpits, life is a turing machine, huh?

okay but that's not a turing machine so you're just finding a very basic understanding of something far more complex than you're wanting to give credit

Your brain is finite
>Deterministic
On a macro scale it is deterministic. People will claim that quantum effects can effect the brain on a macro scale but this has never been proven.

I personally don't believe probabilistic effects factor in to cognition, but if you do, then It is not a turing machine. We will have to agree to disagree there.

I agree. I never said we could build the turing machine or that LLM will ever reach this level of complexity (they wont btw). But saying that LLMs are a lookup table and therefore nonintelligent is a complete non argument.

>LLMs are equivalent to lookup tables.
true
> as long as the computer is only doing arithmetic it can not simulate a human brain
false. The computer would just have to be really really really big.

They are equivalent to lookup tables, but that does not preclude them from seeming intelligent, and the boundary between seeming and being intelligent is impossible to determine.

But neurons only fire around 0.16 times per second, with a maximum of somewhere around 200-600 spikes per second. You really just made that 1000 times per second figure up.
Also each neuron has many inputs for its one output, whereas transistors only have a single input. Clearly a different, spiking architecture where transistors don't operate on a clock, can take multiple analog inputs, and can be stacked much higher would vastly reduce the "compute power" needed. Compute power is a really silly metric when discussing organic intelligence, though.

Your post wasn't talking about turing machines, it was talking about a hypothetical computer.
>For a computer to function at the level of a human brain in a similar fashion
This is what I'm responding to. What I just described would be a computer. Please don't shift the goalposts.

Duality. How does it work mom?

>It is highly like that we will never be able to predict the results of a given wave function collapse

>If scientists dont understand how something works.... it must be probabilistic!!!! TRUST THE SCIENCE
Give me a break.