AI - The artificial intelligence thread

[cichlisuite]

15 hours ago, Alcofribas said:

i think it's interesting(?) that such specific discussions of intelligence, knowledge, consciousness, etc. have surrounded this technology. i've yet to see a truly compelling definition of intelligence in play w/r/t AI. it seems that people are just using definitions that have to fit something like "language model" which really involves a lot of question begging imo, very self-serving. i feel like we're all in some kind of philosophy 101 class on day 1 just throwing out our most deep thoughts maaaaaaan.

in a way i feel this is possibly a doomed discussion. the tech field has created a technology they have called "intelligence" and we all feel we must conceptualize this technology as such. then we're branching off into discussing whether the machine is conscious, does it understand, etc. i think this thrusts us into a kind of conceptual paralysis, perpetually back to square one, bc we do not really have a comprehensive picture of intelligence afaik. certainly, the scientific world has not seemed to produce one. and the tech world, well it's full of shit. 

in any case i generally see the discussion of intelligence on this topic to be rather one dimensional. it's something like intelligence is just some kind of linear computation in the brain, which is some kind of machine itself. and artificial intelligence just kind of emerges in/from a machine when you feed it enough bits. it's all taking place in a single conceptual dimension. seems to me a lot is left out here!

 

it seems that calling this tech 'intelligent' is just a selling gimmick for the mr. money bags, and a trend-creating buzz word so the world starts to turn and face it (which in turn generates more interest of capital)

true self-aware intelligence (i believe) is analogue. you can't replicate that with digital technology

[vkxwz]

9 hours ago, Real Human Bean said:

 

Great video, I was thinking of linking some of this guys stuff before, I think stating your own definitions like he does is pretty important for this topic otherwise you just end up disagreeing about what words mean, like a lot of this thread..

[Alcofribas]

I’ve been GORDO’d

[Alcofribas]

9 hours ago, Satans Little Helper said:

You sound conflicted. In your other post you seemed to criticize the use of concepts like knowledge, consciousness, intelligence, language model and what not. And at the same time you crave a more philosophy in our society.

no conflict. have you gazed upon my other posts, m9? we need better better thinking, not just a stream of jargon used to buttress definitions of intelligence that will fit a technology currently in vogue. 

[Satans Little Helper]

1 hour ago, Alcofribas said:

no conflict. have you gazed upon my other posts, m9? we need better better thinking, not just a stream of jargon used to buttress definitions of intelligence that will fit a technology currently in vogue. 

We also need tolerance. It's not realistic to expect an  academic level of accuracy in public discussions. But I would agree that real expertise is completely undervalued in public discussions. Not your point, but could be. Fair enough, I guess. But complaining about it only makes life hard. Can't be bothered, tbh.

Just like I can't be bothered to track your entire comment history. Even within this thread. Going back one or two pages? Sorry, man. Would you be arsed to check my pervious comments? I assume not. (no disrespect!)

[luke viia]

1 hour ago, Alcofribas said:

 

[Alcofribas]

19 minutes ago, Satans Little Helper said:

We also need tolerance. It's not realistic to expect an  academic level of accuracy in public discussions. But I would agree that real expertise is completely undervalued in public discussions. Not your point, but could be. Fair enough, I guess. But complaining about it only makes life hard. Can't be bothered, tbh.

Just like I can't be bothered to track your entire comment history. Even within this thread. Going back one or two pages? Sorry, man. Would you be arsed to check my pervious comments? I assume not. (no disrespect!)

on the forum, refusing to read posts

watmm

[Satans Little Helper]

23 minutes ago, Alcofribas said:

on the forum, refusing to read posts

watmm

I read this post of yours. I didn't refuse to read posts in general. I just don't go with the "read my comment i wrote somewhere else" BS. This is not a work environment. It's not my job to invest in and keep track of everything ever said around here. If you disagree, I'm happy to support you having an opinion I disagree with.

watmmmmmm

 

666th post party 

Edited April 6, 2023 by Satans Little Helper

[cruising for burgers]

16 hours ago, cichlisuite said:

true self-aware intelligence (i believe) is analogue. you can't replicate that with digital technology

I know shit but you know that there's people/studies that indicate/imply that there's no difference between analog and digital... that, way way deep down, everything ends up being digital... maybe I'm confusing that with time keeping... or maybe I just watched it on a sensationalist bullshit documentary like What the Bleep!?: Down the Rabbit Hole...

[cruising for burgers]

Microsoft Excel is where it's at...

[ignatius]

22 minutes ago, cruising for burgers said:

Microsoft Excel is where it's at...

Microsoft should've sponsored Excel Saga. then we'd really have something to talk about. 

Spoiler

 

 

Edited April 7, 2023 by ignatius

[Satans Little Helper]

3 hours ago, cruising for burgers said:

Microsoft Excel is where it's at...

Pivot tables most underrated invention of previous century

 

 

[vkxwz]

22 hours ago, cichlisuite said:

True self-aware intelligence (i believe) is analogue. you can't replicate that with digital technology

What's your reasoning for this? All things we've called intelligent up until this AI stuff is analogue obviously but I don't see any clear reason why we wouldn't be able to create it digitally, if you believe that intelligence arises from the interactions of physical matter then if we were able to adequately simulate that physical matter would that not yield intelligence? Anyway this another case of not having a definition for the word intelligence.

[exitonly]

1 minute ago, vkxwz said:

What's your reasoning for this? All things we've called intelligent up until this AI stuff is analogue obviously but I don't see any clear reason why we wouldn't be able to create it digitally, if you believe that intelligence arises from the interactions of physical matter then if we were able to adequately simulate that physical matter would that not yield intelligence? Anyway this another case of not having a definition for the word intelligence.

intelligence sounds better on vinyl

[Satans Little Helper]

lossy vs lossless intelligence

 

i encode my intelligence lossy. it shrinks the size, and i don't even notice the difference

[cruising for burgers]

the difference between analog intelligence is night and day from digital intelligence...

[prdctvsm]

1 minute ago, cruising for burgers said:

analog night & day digital intelligence™

 

[cruising for burgers]

1 hour ago, vkxwz said:

if you believe that intelligence arises from the interactions of physical matter then if we were able to adequately simulate that physical matter would that not yield intelligence?

what about the mind? that doesn't need any physical matter... the mind is an immaterial and incorporeal substance... it's just like that mambo jumbo about sex is in the brain, c'mon, without a body you wouldn't have erogenous zones to send horniness to the brain...

Edited April 7, 2023 by cruising for burgers

[zlemflolia]

2 hours ago, vkxwz said:

What's your reasoning for this? All things we've called intelligent up until this AI stuff is analogue obviously but I don't see any clear reason why we wouldn't be able to create it digitally, if you believe that intelligence arises from the interactions of physical matter then if we were able to adequately simulate that physical matter would that not yield intelligence? Anyway this another case of not having a definition for the word intelligence.

digital allows deterministic calculations which are statically defined.  analog computation is more than just the low requirements of Turing complete like a digital computer, you can't simulate analog computers with digital

[cichlisuite]

8 hours ago, cruising for burgers said:

I know shit but you know that there's people/studies that indicate/imply that there's no difference between analog and digital... that, way way deep down, everything ends up being digital... maybe I'm confusing that with time keeping... or maybe I just watched it on a sensationalist bullshit documentary like What the Bleep!?: Down the Rabbit Hole...

 

1 hour ago, vkxwz said:

What's your reasoning for this? All things we've called intelligent up until this AI stuff is analogue obviously but I don't see any clear reason why we wouldn't be able to create it digitally, if you believe that intelligence arises from the interactions of physical matter then if we were able to adequately simulate that physical matter would that not yield intelligence? Anyway this another case of not having a definition for the word intelligence.

it's a matter of perception and boiling the 'issue' down to the factor that can be most easily worked with. however, there's a problem with digital people. they tend to be so full of themselves sometimes that they forget that all they have is a hammer, so everything is a nail for them. of course you can make approximations and simulate stuff digitally, but it's still just an approximation. even digital sound is basically a sinewave made from choped-up positive/negative increments, just the resolution can be very high, so our 'faulty' ear can't discern the difference. but with the brain, the thing is, no one truly understands how brain/consciousness work, and when you include particle physics/fields, things get even more uncertain (unknown). so in any case, making claims that everything is digital deep down, is simply disregarding a lot, which in the end might make a huge difference (so huge in fact, that one could be simply 100% wrong about the whole thing). sure, i've heard about the claims that the brain is both analogue and digital, but i still believe that is not the case. i mean we don't even have the means (capability) to measure things as they are - so we can't even know how they truly are (heisenberg. so how can we know those claims can be 100% true? things can appear to be dealing with two absolute values (on/off, 1/0, etc). but these are neurons we're talking about, and particle physics. my intuition tells me it's closer to analogue + control voltage kind of thing, with plenty of 'randomness' and 'errors', and simultaneous combinations firing at once, whereas, with digital you cannot truly have simultaneous processing. it's very fast, yes, and it can appear simultaneous when you view it with a certain distance of time resolution, but it's not.

[cichlisuite]

14 minutes ago, zlemflolia said:

digital allows deterministic calculations which are statically defined.  analog computation is more than just the low requirements of Turing complete like a digital computer, you can't simulate analog computers with digital

that's more on point and eloquent

Edited April 7, 2023 by cichlisuite

[cruising for burgers]

16 minutes ago, cichlisuite said:

with digital you cannot truly have simultaneous processing. it's very fast, yes, and it can appear simultaneous when you view it with a certain distance of time resolution, but it's not.

what about quantum computing?

[zlemflolia]

ai appearing intelligent to us is us playing an elaborate illusion on ourselves, being willing to put ourselves below the machines and not put them back in their place - to serve our needs, not for us to serve them.  this illusion is caused by the division of labor which causes false consciousness, placing our trust in capital rather than in ourselves

"We must negate the machines-that-think. Humans must set their own guidelines. This is not something machines can do. Reasoning depends upon programming, not on hardware, and we are the ultimate program! Our Jihad is a "dump program." We dump the things which destroy us as humans!"

― Minister-companion of the Jihad^[src]

https://dune.fandom.com/wiki/Butlerian_Jihad

[zlemflolia]

2 minutes ago, cruising for burgers said:

what about quantum computing?

its going to allow for modelling physical processes in new ways we couldn't as easily before, but it's no replacement for the real thing

[vkxwz]

3 hours ago, zlemflolia said:

digital allows deterministic calculations which are statically defined.  analog computation is more than just the low requirements of Turing complete like a digital computer, you can't simulate analog computers with digital

But why do you think that brains in particular rely on those properties(assuming they are not able to be simulated, which I disagree with). Obviously some things that happen in physical space can be simulated digitally at the level of abstraction needed to accomplish that task, for example we humans can multiply numbers together with a pen and paper, and this process can be simulated digitally at a level of abstraction that means it still gets the same end result. why is intelligence not something similar to the multiplication in that example.

3 hours ago, cichlisuite said:

 

it's a matter of perception and boiling the 'issue' down to the factor that can be most easily worked with. however, there's a problem with digital people. they tend to be so full of themselves sometimes that they forget that all they have is a hammer, so everything is a nail for them. of course you can make approximations and simulate stuff digitally, but it's still just an approximation. even digital sound is basically a sinewave made from choped-up positive/negative increments, just the resolution can be very high, so our 'faulty' ear can't discern the difference. but with the brain, the thing is, no one truly understands how brain/consciousness work, and when you include particle physics/fields, things get even more uncertain (unknown). so in any case, making claims that everything is digital deep down, is simply disregarding a lot, which in the end might make a huge difference (so huge in fact, that one could be simply 100% wrong about the whole thing). sure, i've heard about the claims that the brain is both analogue and digital, but i still believe that is not the case. i mean we don't even have the means (capability) to measure things as they are - so we can't even know how they truly are (heisenberg. so how can we know those claims can be 100% true? things can appear to be dealing with two absolute values (on/off, 1/0, etc). but these are neurons we're talking about, and particle physics. my intuition tells me it's closer to analogue + control voltage kind of thing, with plenty of 'randomness' and 'errors', and simultaneous combinations firing at once, whereas, with digital you cannot truly have simultaneous processing. it's very fast, yes, and it can appear simultaneous when you view it with a certain distance of time resolution, but it's not.

So about the simultaneous processing part, it doesn't really matter if you're doing it step by step, an algorithm with 0 parallel computation (which modern computers actually do nowadays anyway) can still compute the next state in a way that you might call simultaneous processing, think of something like the game of life, where 2 gliders in different locations are updated simultaneuously as you go from one step to the next. And if you argue that simulating in steps like this cannot yield intelligence I think you're going to need a better reason to support that claim than the fact that we dont fully understand particle physics.

I think we are on the same page about the complexity of the brain though, I think that when people claim it's digital they are talking about neurons either firing or not firing, but even when this is the case, the timing isn't "digital", so the frequency of firing is again an analogue thing and the phase of a signal matters and you get interference etc.

Edited April 7, 2023 by vkxwz