LOOK MAA I AM ON FRONT PAGE

  • kadup@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    19
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 day ago

    That entire paragraph is much better at supporting the precise opposite argument. Computers can beat Kasparov at chess, but they’re clearly not thinking when making a move - even if we use the most open biological definitions for thinking.

    • cyd@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      19 hours ago

      By that metric, you can argue Kasparov isn’t thinking during chess, either. A lot of human chess “thinking” is recalling memorized openings, evaluating positions many moves deep, and other tasks that map to what a chess engine does. Of course Kasparov is thinking, but then you have to conclude that the AI is thinking too. Thinking isn’t a magic process, nor is it tightly coupled to human-like brain processes as we like to think.

      • kadup@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        10 hours ago

        By that metric, you can argue Kasparov isn’t thinking during chess

        Kasparov’s thinking fits pretty much all biological definitions of thinking. Which is the entire point.

    • Grimy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      19
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      1 day ago

      No, it shows how certain people misunderstand the meaning of the word.

      You have called npcs in video games “AI” for a decade, yet you were never implying they were somehow intelligent. The whole argument is strangely inconsistent.

      • Clent@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        23 hours ago

        Intellegence has a very clear definition.

        It’s requires the ability to acquire knowledge, understand knowledge and use knowledge.

        No one has been able to create an system that can understand knowledge, therefor me none of it is artificial intelligence. Each generation is merely more and more complex knowledge models. Useful in many ways but never intelligent.

        • Grimy@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          10 hours ago

          Dog has a very clear definition, so when you call a sausage in a bun a “Hot Dog”, you are actually a fool.

          Smart has a very clear definition, so no, you do not have a “Smart Phone” in your pocket.

          Also, that is not the definition of intelligence. But the crux of the issue is that you are making up a definition for AI that suits your needs.

          • Clent@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            4 hours ago

            Misconstruing how language works isn’t an argument for what an existing and established word means.

            I’m sure that argument made you feel super clever but it’s nonsense.

            I sourced by definition from authoritative sources. The fact that you didn’t even bother to verify that or provide an alternative authoritative definition tells me all I need to know about the value in further discussion with you.

            • Grimy@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              60 minutes ago

              "Artificial intelligence refers to computer systems that can perform complex tasks normally done by human-reasoning, decision making, creating, etc.

              There is no single, simple definition of artificial intelligence because AI tools are capable of a wide range of tasks and outputs, but NASA follows the definition of AI found within EO 13960, which references Section 238(g) of the National Defense Authorization Act of 2019.

              • Any artificial system that performs tasks under varying and unpredictable circumstances without significant human oversight, or that can learn from experience and improve performance when exposed to data sets.
              • An artificial system developed in computer software, physical hardware, or other context that solves tasks requiring human-like perception, cognition, planning, learning, communication, or physical action.
              • An artificial system designed to think or act like a human, including cognitive architectures and neural networks.
              • A set of techniques, including machine learning that is designed to approximate a cognitive task.
              • An artificial system designed to act rationally, including an intelligent software agent or embodied robot that achieves goals using perception, planning, reasoning, learning, communicating, decision-making, and acting."

              This is from NASA (emphasis mine). https://www.nasa.gov/what-is-artificial-intelligence/

              The problem is that you are reading the word intelligence and thinking it means the system itself needs to be intelligent, when it only needs to be doing things that we would normally attribute to intelligence. Computer vision is AI, but a software that detects a car inside a picture and draws a box around it isn’t intelligent. It is still considered AI and has been considered AI for the past three decades.

              Now show me your blog post that told you that AI isnt AI because it isn’t thinking.

        • 8uurg@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          13 hours ago

          Wouldn’t the algorithm that creates these models in the first place fit the bill? Given that it takes a bunch of text data, and manages to organize this in such a fashion that the resulting model can combine knowledge from pieces of text, I would argue so.

          What is understanding knowledge anyways? Wouldn’t humans not fit the bill either, given that for most of our knowledge we do not know why it is the way it is, or even had rules that were - in hindsight - incorrect?

          If a model is more capable of solving a problem than an average human being, isn’t it, in its own way, some form of intelligent? And, to take things to the utter extreme, wouldn’t evolution itself be intelligent, given that it causes intelligent behavior to emerge, for example, viruses adapting to external threats? What about an (iterative) optimization algorithm that finds solutions that no human would be able to find?

          Intellegence has a very clear definition.

          I would disagree, it is probably one of the most hard to define things out there, which has changed greatly with time, and is core to the study of philosophy. Every time a being or thing fits a definition of intelligent, the definition often altered to exclude, as has been done many times.

      • technocrit@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        8
        ·
        edit-2
        1 day ago

        Who is “you”?

        Just because some dummies supposedly think that NPCs are “AI”, that doesn’t make it so. I don’t consider checkers to be a litmus test for “intelligence”.

        • Grimy@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          11
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 day ago

          “You” applies to anyone that doesnt understand what AI means. It’s a portmanteau word for a lot of things.

          Npcs ARE AI. AI doesnt mean “human level intelligence” and never did. Read the wiki if you need help understanding.