A Futurism article about "AI bros are having a meltdown because the Associated Press stylebook clarifies that AIs don’t have feelings" featured this guy's tweets in the first sentence. Turns out he was talking about dogs instead of AI.

For some reason I can't stop laughing about this.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] -3 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (9 children)

There is no substance or arguments in any of these ramblings, just constant repetition that AI "is nothing like a human." Which I have already addressed this slop with the discussion about running, but you are just stuck in a loop repeating the same thing over and over again when it has no relevance to anything I've stated. You cannot defend your position so you operate on a straw man that people saying AI can think are saying AI is literally identical to a human and so you constantly go in circles repeating a fallacy no one even claimed.

You, and frankly most people, have an extremely emotional attachment to the idea that so somehow thought is something special that only humans can do, and this strong emotional feeling prevents you from engaging in the discussion honestly. You can't actually address what I am saying and you can't represent my arguments accurately because an emotional block in your brain prevents you from doing so.

You just keep in a loop like a machine going back to "but it's not like a human but it's not like a human!!! Oh my god i cant believe you made a slightly loose analogy to humans for illustrative purposes don't you know they're not literally the same as humans?!?!" Who tf cares if it's "like" a human? Why the hell does it need to be "like a human"? What's the relevance? Why does it even matter?

It's not relevant but you can't help but constantly bring it up because you and most everyone else has a brain block that disallows you to admit that there can be other kinds of thinking, even if it is not in a "human way," because you're afraid it makes humans seem less magical.

Nothing in your ramblings even addressed 1 of my points in the previous post. Because you can't address them because there is no logic behind your beliefs. You are just scrambling for some way to avoid the emotional discomfort from the cognitive dissonance in your head by throwing whatever at the wall without actually engaging with anything that was said, but ultimately you don't have to since most people have same mental block and will be on your side anyways.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 3 weeks ago (8 children)

    Who tf cares if it’s “like” a human? Why the hell does it need to be “like a human”? What’s the relevance? Why does it even matter?

    Because when someone says it's intelligent, or it's aware, or it's conscious, or things like that, what do they tend to do (including you)? They compare it to conceptions of intelligence or awareness or consciousness that we have about humans. But if an LLM is nothing like a human, then this gets us no closer to understanding how to define what they are. And if attempts to do so end up being reductionist about what a human is in order to make human seem more like a computer, just so that we can fulfill this fantasy of computers coming to life, then we have actually lost understanding in the process, not gained something.

    I'm under no obligation to do a tiresome back and forth where I break each post down and continually respond to every single component of every response you make. I'm going to respond on my own terms and if you don't like that, then tough.

    Anyway, you're wrong about what I think and the arrogance of insisting you know what I'm going to say and you know how I think is holding you back. On this very forum, I've sided before with the view that a skill like writing is not as special as people make it out to be. That the theory of it can be figured out and then reproduced. It's actually more of a demystification, demagification view than what you're putting forth. The theme of it is that certain of things that humans take as impossible to understand and therefore "special" can be understood and then a machine that is almost nothing like us, with no consciousness, no actual mind, can be trained to do it well enough that it looks a lot like works we'd produce. Importantly, this does NOT mean either of the following on its own: 1) It does not mean the machine is a living entity. 2) It does not mean human beings are less than what they were thought to be. Any more than inventing a calculator means the calculator is a living entity and humans are less than we thought because a calculator can run numbers for us.

    1 is an extraordinary claim and prospect that requires extremely careful investigation. 2 just means that another of the things we do can be more readily understood on a theoretical level, which means we can actually (probably) become better at it than we are through the proper development and application of theory.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] -3 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (7 children)

    Because when someone says it’s intelligent, or it’s aware, or it’s conscious, or things like that, what do they tend to do (including you)?

    None of these things are the same at all.

    "Consciousness" also is not even real but just a modern variant of the "soul" for mystics who want to be taken more seriously.

    They compare it to conceptions of intelligence or awareness or consciousness that we have about humans

    So if I say a robot is running I'm arguing a robot is literally identical to a human and running in precisely the exact way humans do because humans also run?

    You talk of analogies. I don't know why no one on the internet knows what a fucking analogy is. An analogy is when you compare two unlike things to draw out similarities in structure.

    But everyone on the internet seems to think an analogy is when you claim two things are literally the same in all ways so they freak out whenever an analogy is made and start pointing out differences between the two things that are not actually relevant to what is being discussed.

    just so that we can fulfill this fantasy of computers coming to life

    I really can't be bothered to take an unironic vitalist seriously.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [+] 5 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 child)
  • [–] 0 points 3 weeks ago

    I've read Lenin and he repeats Kantian dualism and calls it "materialism," and this has poisoned the discussion on materialism so much that you unironically believe non-dualists are "vulgar materialists." If being a "dialectical materialist" means I have to be a Kantian then I'm not a dialectical materialist. Boohoo.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (5 replies)
  • load more comments (5 replies)
  • load more comments (5 replies)