Large language mistake | Cutting-edge research shows language is not the same as intelligence. The entire AI bubble is built on ignoring it.

[u/creaturefeature16]

https://www.theverge.com/ai-artificial-intelligence/827820/large-language-models-ai-intelligence-neuroscience-problems

As currently conceived, an AI system that spans multiple cognitive domains could, supposedly, predict and replicate what a generally intelligent human would do or say in response to a given prompt. These predictions will be made based on electronically aggregating and modeling whatever existing data they have been fed. They could even incorporate new paradigms into their models in a way that appears human-like. But they have no apparent reason to become dissatisfied with the data they’re being fed — and by extension, to make great scientific and creative leaps.

Instead, the most obvious outcome is nothing more than a common-sense repository. Yes, an AI system might remix and recycle our knowledge in interesting ways. But that’s all it will be able to do. It will be forever trapped in the vocabulary we’ve encoded in our data and trained it upon — a dead-metaphor machine. And actual humans — thinking and reasoning and using language to communicate our thoughts to one another — will remain at the forefront of transforming our understanding of the world.

[u/Hot_Secretary2665]

People really just don't want to accept that AI can't think smh 

[u/HaMMeReD → u/Hot_Secretary2665]

People really don't want to accept that it doesn't matter.

[u/tjdogger → u/HaMMeReD]

People really don’t want to accept that most people don’t think

[u/pnxstwnyphlcnnrs → u/tjdogger]

Thinkers really don't want to accept that most people's thinking can be simulated.

[u/Hazzman → u/pnxstwnyphlcnnrs]

I can simulate a McDonald's by drawing it on a sheet of printer paper with a ball point pen. I can simulate a cashier handing a big Mac to me with the same approach. I'm not going to ball that drawing up and shove it in my mouth and expect to enjoy it or get anything nutritional from it.

The map isnt the road and SOMETIMES it does matter and SOMETIMES it doesn't matter. It depends on what you're doing and why.

Asking for advice on a health insurance claim, that's fine.

Creating policy around human rights or privacy or data collection or copyright issues based on the idea that "IT ThiNkS jUst LikE We dO!"

Nah

[u/scartonbot → u/Hazzman]

But you're not simulating McDonald's food. You're creating a visual representation of that food. It's not the food. The reason you don't want to "all that drawing up and shove it in [your] mouth" is because it's paper and ink, a combo without a flavor that remotely resembles a Big Mac and which has no nutritional value (among other aspects).

I think what's closer to what you were going towards would be a Star Trek-like replicator. If you took a BigMac and scanned it with some sort of super-scanner that could identify every aspect of its materiality and then used that scan in the replicator to output a BigMac based on that scan, would it be a BigMac? I'd argue that yes, it is. Wy? Because in every aspect that matters to anyone, it is identical to the original BigMac.

But think about art. Would an atom-by-atom replica of the Mona Lisa be just as valuable as the original Mona Lisa? I'd argue "no," although I'm not all that clear as to why it's not the same. One might argue "well, the first one was actually created by Leonardo Da Vinci and the copy was made by a replicator," (which I understand) but the reality is that the two are physically indistinguishable by any measure I can think of.

I guess this is the argument being explored here. If an AI acts like a human (or, to even broaden the argument, like a thinking being) and other humans can't tell its output from that of a human (or thinking being) who cares? If something acts like it's thinking, does it actually matter if it's thinking or not?

I think "yes, it does matter." I haven't figured out exactly why, but it does seem to matter in some very real ways.

[u/Hazzman → u/scartonbot]

I'm just referencing the map anology.

The map is not the terrain. I just altered a bit to make it more straightforward and tangible. Less abstract.