@RustyShackleford@piefed.social
Post #1302696
2026-03-27 05:53 UTC
Replies (5)
-
@CosmicTurtle0@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2026-03-27 08:32
As a technologist, I have to remind everyone that AI is not intelligence. It's a word prediction/statistical machine. It's guessing at a surprisingly good rate what words follow the words before it. It's math. All the way down. We as humans have simply taken these words and have said that it is "intelligence".
-
@sp3ctr4l@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2026-03-27 16:55
Here is a way of describing what I see as 'the problem': An LLM cannot forget things in its base training data set. Its permanent memory... is totally permanent. And this memory has a bunch of wrong ideas, a bunch of nonsensical associations, a bunch of false facts, a bunch of meaningless gibberish. It has no way of evaluating its own knowledge set for consistency, coherence, and stability. It literally cannot learn and grow, because it cannot realize why it made mistakes, it cannot discard or ammend in a permanent way, concepts that are incoherent, faulty ways of reasoning (associating) things. Seriously, ask an LLM a trick question, then tell it it was wrong, explain the correct answer, then ask it to determine why it was wrong. Then give it another similar category of trick question, but that is specifically different, repeat. The closer you try to get it toward reworking a fundamental axiom it holds to that is flawed, the closer it gets to responding in totally paradoxical, illogical gibberish, or just stuck in some kind of repetetive loop. ... Learning is as much building new ideas and experiences, as it is reevaluating your old ideas and experiences, and discarding concepts that are wrong or insufficient. Biological brains have neuroplasticity. So far, silicon ones do not.
-
@MagicShel@lemmy.zip 2026-03-27 08:36
The major thing AI lacks is continuous parallel "prompting" through a variety of channels including sensory, biofeedback, and introspection / meta-thought about internal state and thinking. AI currently transforms a given input into an output. However it cannot accept new input in the middle of an output. It can't evaluate the quality of its own reasoning except though trial and error. If you had 1000 AIs operating in tandem and fed a continuous stream of prompts in the form of pictures, text, meta-inspection, and perhaps a simulation of biomechanical feedback with the right configuration, I think it might be possible to create a system that is a hell of an approximation of sentience. But it would be slow and I'm not sure the result would be any better than a human — you'd introduce a lot of friction to the "thought" process. And I have to assume the energy cost would be pretty enormous. In the end it would be a cool experiment to be part of, but I doubt that version would be worth the investment.
-
@partofthevoice@lemmy.zip 2026-03-27 16:00
> it lacks childhood dependency and attachments. Isn’t general intelligence, or more broadly “consciousness,” a prerequisite to that? How would you make an unconscious machine more conscious merely by making mock scenarios that conscious beings necessarily experience? > it struggles to overcome repeated pain and suffering That’s getting into phenomenology — why is pain an experience of suffering at all? How would you give it pain and suffering without having already made it AGI? We’re still missing the ` -> AGI` step. > it lacks regular eating and restroom breaks The necessity of which is emergent from our culture and biology, as conscious social beings. We’re still missing a vital step. > it struggles to accept loss in everyday situations What is “loss” and “everyday situations” if not just a way we choose to see the world, again as conscious beings. > it lacks the concept of our inevitable death How do you give it a “concept” at all? > these nagging memories and concepts The AI in its current form has the “memory” in some form, but perhaps not the “nagging.” What should do the “nagging” and what should be the target of the “nagging?” How do you conceptually separate the “memory” and the “nagging” from the “being” that you’re trying to create? Is it all part of the same being, or does it initialize the being? We’re a long way away from AGI, IMO. The exciting thing to me, though, is I don’t think it’s possible to develop AGI without first understanding what makes N(atural)GI. Depending how far away AGI is, we could be on the cusp of some deeply psychologically revealing shit.
-
@yyprum@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2026-03-28 03:48
As a random internet user, I want to remind you, are we sure even if humans are that intelligent to begin with? All those steps you give, are not needed for intelligence. We keep moving the goal post for what intelligence is, and last I saw we have started to divide intelligence into different categories. LLMs are just "imitate as closely as possible human responses" for good and for bad. And now we are trying to fix that to be as right as possible, when the flaw is that we as humans are mostly always wrong.