We need to stop pretending AI is intelligent – here’s how
theconversation.com
AI may appear human, but it is an illusion we must tackle.

We are constantly fed a version of AI that looks, sounds and acts suspiciously like us. It speaks in polished sentences, mimics emotions, expresses curiosity, claims to feel compassion, even dabbles in what it calls creativity.

But what we call AI today is nothing more than a statistical machine: a digital parrot regurgitating patterns mined from oceans of human data (the situation hasn’t changed much since it was discussed here five years ago). When it writes an answer to a question, it literally just guesses which letter and word will come next in a sequence – based on the data it’s been trained on.

This means AI has no understanding. No consciousness. No knowledge in any real, human sense. Just pure probability-driven, engineered brilliance — nothing more, and nothing less.

So why is a real “thinking” AI likely impossible? Because it’s bodiless. It has no senses, no flesh, no nerves, no pain, no pleasure. It doesn’t hunger, desire or fear. And because there is no cognition — not a shred — there’s a fundamental gap between the data it consumes (data born out of human feelings and experience) and what it can do with them.

Philosopher David Chalmers calls the mysterious mechanism underlying the relationship between our physical body and consciousness the “hard problem of consciousness”. Eminent scientists have recently hypothesised that consciousness actually emerges from the integration of internal, mental states with sensory representations (such as changes in heart rate, sweating and much more).

Given the paramount importance of the human senses and emotion for consciousness to “happen”, there is a profound and probably irreconcilable disconnect between general AI, the machine, and consciousness, a human phenomenon.

https://archive.ph/Fapar

  • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmy.ml
    32·
    19 days ago

    Im simply stating that you’re way off base when you claim that they appear to operate using the same principles or that all evidence suggests the human mind is nothing more than a probability machine.

    I literally said these things, and you never gave any actual counter argument to either of them.

    You’re betraying your own ignorance about neuroscience. The complexity of the brain is absolutely linked with its ability to reason and we have plenty of evidence to show that. The evolutionary process does not just create needless complexity if there is a more efficient path.

    You’re betraying your ignorance of how biology works and illustrating that you have absolutely no business debating this subject. Efficiency is not the primary fitness function for evolution, it’s survivability. And that means having a lot of redundancy baked into the system. Here’s a concrete example for you of just how much of the brain isn’t actually essential for normal day to day function. https://www.rifters.com/crawl/?p=6116

    This is such a silly statement especially when you’ve been claiming that both the brain and AI appear to work using the same principles.

    There’s nothing silly in stating that the underlying principles are similar, but we don’t understand a lot of the mechanics of the brain. If you truly can’t understand such basic things there’s little point trying to have a meaningful discussion.

    I don’t really care about your arguments concerning embodiment because they’re so beside the point when you just blowing right by the most basic principles of neuroscience.

    That’s literally the whole context for this thread, it just doesn’t fit with the straw man you want to argue about.

    A ruthless criticism of that exists includes the very researchers whose work you’re taking at face value.

    Whose work am I taking at face value specifically? You’re just spewing nonsense here without engaging with anything I’m saying.

    • cecinestpasunbot@lemmy.mlEnglish
      22·
      19 days ago

      You’re betraying your ignorance of how biology works and illustrating that you have absolutely no business debating this subject.

      Have some humility and willingness to learn.

      Efficiency is not the primary fitness function for evolution, it’s survivability.

      I didn’t say it was the primary function. I guess all that talk about straw men was just projection. You don’t trust me, fine. Then what about Darwin who literally said, “Natural selection is continually trying to economize every part of the organization.” Now please go and read some introductory texts on biology before trying to explain to me why Darwin is wrong. There’s so much going on when it comes to the thermodynamics of living systems and you’re clearly not ready to have a conversation about it.

      Here’s a concrete example for you of just how much of the brain isn’t actually essential for normal day to day function.

      You’re baseless assuming that hydrocephalus causes the brain to lose a substantial amount of its complexity. Where is the evidence for that? In most of these cases it seems much of the outer layers of the cerebral cortex are in tact. It’s also really telling that your citation’s first source is an article titled “Is Your Brain Really Necessary” which is followed in the Journal by another article entitled “Math and Sex: Are Girls Born with Less Ability?”. But hey neuroscience hasn’t really advanced at all since 1980 right? The brain is totally redundant right? There’s no possible way a critical and discerning person such as yourself could have been taken in by junk science, right?!!

      That’s literally the whole context for this thread, it just doesn’t fit with the straw man you want to argue about.

      I took issue with specific statements you made that stand apart from the rest of your comment. That’s not a straw man. Although honestly this is on me. What can I expect from someone who thinks LLMs and the Human Brain are operating on similar principles? You’re so wound up in a pseudoscientific fiction there’s nothing I can do. You might as well start believing in the astrology, crystals, and energy healing. At least those interests will make you seem fun and quirky instead of just an over confident tech bro.

      • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmy.ml
        33·
        19 days ago

        Have some humility and willingness to learn.

        I have plenty of willingness to learn from people who have a clue on the subject.

        I didn’t say it was the primary function.

        You literally tried to argue that evolution doesn’t create complexity if there’s a more efficient path.th.

        Then what about Darwin who literally said, “Natural selection is continually trying to economize every part of the organization.” Now please go and read some introductory texts on biology before trying to explain to me why Darwin is wrong. There’s so much going on when it comes to the thermodynamics of living systems and you’re clearly not ready to have a conversation about it.

        Again, you’re showing a superficial understanding of the subject here. Natural selection selects for overall fitness, and efficiency is only a small part of equation. For example, plants don’t use the most efficient wavelength for producing energy, they use the one that’s most reliably available. Similarly, living organisms have all kinds of redundancies that allow them to continue to function when they’re damaged. Evolution optimizes for survival over efficiency.

        You’re baseless assuming that hydrocephalus causes the brain to lose a substantial amount of its complexity.

        Maybe read the actual paper linked there?

        But hey neuroscience hasn’t really advanced at all since 1980 right? The brain is totally redundant right? There’s no possible way a critical and discerning person such as yourself could have been taken in by junk science, right?!!

        What I linked you is a case study of an actual living person who was missing large parts of their brain and had a relatively normal life. But hey why focus on the actual facts when you can just write more word salad right?

        I took issue with specific statements you made that stand apart from the rest of your comment.

        You took issue with made up straw man arguments that you yourself made and have fuck all with what I actually said. Then you proceeded to demonstrate that you don’t actually understand the subject you’re debating. You might as well start believing in the astrology, crystals, and energy healing. At least those interests will make you seem fun and quirky instead of just a sad debate bro.

        • cecinestpasunbot@lemmy.mlEnglish
          21·
          7 hours ago

          For example, plants don’t use the most efficient wavelength for producing energy, they use the one that’s most reliably available.

          You’re missing the point entirely. Biological systems are governed by the laws thermodynamics. The reason why complex structures are even possible in a universe where entropy is king is because biological systems offer the most direct path towards a total increase in the amount of entropy in our little corner of the universe. Natural selection is governed by those principles. The brain has a disproportionately high metabolism relative to other organs in the human body. To argue it’s largely a redundant structure like the kidneys or liver you need real evidence.

          Maybe read the actual paper linked there?

          You linked a fucking blog post written by a science fiction author not a peer reviewed scientific paper. And yes I did read it. Is your ego so large that you can’t possible conceive of someone coming to a different conclusion when faced with the same “evidence”?

          What I linked you is a case study of an actual living person who was missing large parts of their brain and had a relatively normal life. But hey why focus on the actual facts when you can just write more word salad right?

          Word Salad? Is this word salad, “In most of these cases it seems much of the outer layers of the cerebral cortex are in tact.”? Do you not have an argument against that or do you know so little about the human brain that “cerebral cortex” sounds like gibberish to you? If you’re not convinced how about you try taking a lobe out of someone whose brain hasn’t been forced to adapt to extreme conditions and tell me how that experiment works out. Maybe then you’ll understand how “redundant” the brain really is.

          You might as well start believing in the astrology, crystals, and energy healing. At least those interests will make you seem fun and quirky instead of just a sad debate bro.

          Big “I know you are but what am I” energy. lol

          • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmy.ml
            1·
            5 hours ago

            You’re missing the point entirely. Biological systems are governed by the laws thermodynamics.

            I’m not missing anything. I’m simply explaining to you that the fitness function for living organisms is far more complex than simply striving for efficiency. I understand perfectly well how entropy and thermodynamics work.

            The brain has a disproportionately high metabolism relative to other organs in the human body. To argue it’s largely a redundant structure like the kidneys or liver you need real evidence.

            There is plenty of real evidence. I’ve literally provided you evidence of a person with most of their brain missing who has led a normal life. Another obvious example is people who lose half their brain in accidents and can continue to live normal lives with a single hemisphere. More evidence comes from birds like corvids who exhibit high levels of intelligence and problem solving that’s comparable to primates. Since they have an additional requirement of being able to fly, there is a selection pressure to optimize the system further. Just because you’re completely ignorant on the topic you’re attempting to debate here doesn’t mean that evidence doesn’t exist.

            You linked a fucking blog post written by a science fiction author not a peer reviewed scientific paper. And yes I did read it. Is your ego so large that you can’t possible conceive of someone coming to a different conclusion when faced with the same “evidence”?

            I linked you a blog post by a biologist discussing a paper. This is a very well known case that’s in no way controversial. The fact that you’re acting as if it just just further shows that you have no business having this discussion. https://www.cbc.ca/radio/asithappens/as-it-happens-thursday-edition-1.3679117/scientists-research-man-missing-90-of-his-brain-who-leads-a-normal-life-1.3679125

            Big “I know you are but what am I” energy. lol

            about the level of discourse I’ve come to expect from you lol