this post was submitted on 28 Jun 2025
797 points (94.5% liked)

Technology

72049 readers
2828 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

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

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] mechoman444@lemmy.world 12 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (2 children)

In that case let's stop calling it ai, because it isn't and use it's correct abbreviation: llm.

[–] HugeNerd@lemmy.ca 5 points 1 day ago (2 children)
[–] mechoman444@lemmy.world 1 points 22 hours ago (2 children)

My auto correct doesn't care.

[–] JcbAzPx@lemmy.world 1 points 5 hours ago* (last edited 5 hours ago) (1 children)

So you trust your slm more than your fellow humans?

[–] mechoman444@lemmy.world 1 points 52 minutes ago

Ya of course I do. Humans are the most unreliable slick disgusting diseased morally inept living organisms on the planet.

[–] HugeNerd@lemmy.ca 6 points 17 hours ago (1 children)
[–] JackbyDev@programming.dev -5 points 16 hours ago (1 children)

Yours didn't and read it just fine.

[–] elbarto777@lemmy.world 1 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

That's irrelevant. That's like saying you shouldn't complain about someone running a red light if you stopped in time before they t-boned you - because you understood the situation.

[–] JackbyDev@programming.dev 0 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

Are you really comparing my repsonse to the tone when correcting minor grammatical errors to someone brushing off nearly killing someone right now?

[–] elbarto777@lemmy.world 0 points 4 hours ago

That's a red herring, bro. It's an analogy. You know that.

[–] warbond@lemmy.world 0 points 23 hours ago (4 children)

Kinda dumb that apostrophe s means possessive in some circumstances and then a contraction in others.

I wonder how different it'll be in 500 years.

[–] elbarto777@lemmy.world 3 points 6 hours ago* (last edited 6 hours ago)

I'd agree with you if I saw "hi's" and "her's" in the wild, but nope. I still haven't seen someone write "that car is her's".

[–] HugeNerd@lemmy.ca 4 points 17 hours ago (1 children)

It's called polymorphism. It always amuses me that engineers, software and hardware, handle complexities far beyond this every day but can't write for beans.

[–] JackbyDev@programming.dev 1 points 16 hours ago

Software engineer here. We often wish we can fix things we view as broken. Why is that surprising ?Also, polymorphism is a concept in computer science as well

[–] DirigibleProtein@aussie.zone 5 points 23 hours ago

It’s “its”, not “it’s”, unless you mean “it is”, in which case it is “it’s “.

[–] sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 3 points 21 hours ago (1 children)

Would you rather use the same contraction for both? Because "its" for "it is" is an even worse break from proper grammar IMO.

[–] MrScottyTay@sh.itjust.works -3 points 16 hours ago (1 children)

Proper grammar means shit all in English, unless you're worrying for a specific style, in which you follow the grammar rules for that style.

Standard English has such a long list of weird and contradictory roles with nonsensical exceptions, that in every day English, getting your point across in communication is better than trying to follow some more arbitrary rules.

Which become even more arbitrary as English becomes more and more a melting pot of multicultural idioms and slang. Although I'm saying that as if that's a new thing, but it does feel like a recent thing to be taught that side of English rather than just "The Queen's(/King's) English" as the style to strive for in writing and formal communication.

I say as long as someone can understand what you're saying, your English is correct. If it becomes vague due to mishandling of the classic rules of English, then maybe you need to follow them a bit. I don't have a specific science to this.

[–] elbarto777@lemmy.world 4 points 6 hours ago

I understand that languages evolve, but for now, writing "it's" when you meant "its" is a grammatical error.