this post was submitted on 28 Jun 2025
948 points (94.8% liked)

Technology

71991 readers
2359 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

(page 2) 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] guyoverthere123@lemmy.dbzer0.com 39 points 21 hours ago (3 children)

Anyone pretending AI has intelligence is a fucking idiot.

[–] MangoCats@feddit.it 5 points 17 hours ago (2 children)

AI is not actual intelligence. However, it can produce results better than a significant number of professionally employed people...

I am reminded of when word processors came out and "administrative assistant" dwindled as a role in mid-level professional organizations, most people - even increasingly medical doctors these days - do their own typing. The whole "typing pool" concept has pretty well dried up.

[–] tartarin@reddthat.com 4 points 15 hours ago (2 children)

However, there is a huge energy cost for that speed to process statistically the information to mimic intelligence. The human brain is consuming much less energy. Also, AI will be fine with well defined task where innovation isn't a requirement. As it is today, AI is incapable to innovate.

[–] cheesorist@lemmy.world 2 points 12 hours ago (3 children)

much less? I'm pretty sure our brains need food and food requires lots of other stuff that need transportation or energy themselves to produce.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] burgerpocalyse@lemmy.world 1 points 14 hours ago (1 children)

you can give me a sandwige and ill do a better job than AI

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] PattyMcB@lemmy.world 4 points 19 hours ago (1 children)

You could say they're AS (Actual Stupidity)

[–] Puddinghelmet@lemmy.world 3 points 18 hours ago* (last edited 18 hours ago)

Autonomous Systems that are Actually Stupid lol

[–] scarabic@lemmy.world 19 points 22 hours ago (8 children)

My thing is that I don’t think most humans are much more than this. We too regurgitate what we have absorbed in the past. Our brains are not hard logic engines but “best guess” boxes and they base those guesses on past experience and probability of success. We make choices before we are aware of them and then apply rationalizations after the fact to back them up - is that true “reasoning?”

It’s similar to the debate about self driving cars. Are they perfectly safe? No, but have you seen human drivers???

[–] Saledovil@sh.itjust.works 3 points 12 hours ago (1 children)

Ai models are trained on basically the entirety of the internet, and more. Humans learn to speak on much less info. So, there's likely a huge difference in how human brains and LLMs work.

load more comments (1 replies)

Humans can be more than this. We do actively repress our most important intellectual capacuties.

[–] AppleTea@lemmy.zip 5 points 18 hours ago (3 children)

Self Driving is only safer than people in absolutely pristine road conditions with no inclement weather and no construction. As soon as anything disrupts "normal" road conditions, self driving becomes significantly more dangerous than a human driving.

[–] witten@lemmy.world 3 points 11 hours ago* (last edited 11 hours ago) (1 children)

With Teslas, Self Driving isn't even safer in pristine road conditions.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] MangoCats@feddit.it 4 points 17 hours ago (4 children)

Human drivers are only safe when they're not distracted, emotionally disturbed, intoxicated, and physically challenged (vision, muscle control, etc.) 1% of the population has epilepsy, and a large number of them are in denial or simply don't realize that they have periodic seizures - until they wake up after their crash.

So, yeah, AI isn't perfect either - and it's not as good as an "ideal" human driver, but at what point will AI be better than a typical/average human driver? Not today, I'd say, but soon...

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] MangoCats@feddit.it 2 points 17 hours ago

If an IQ of 100 is average, I'd rate AI at 80 and down for most tasks (and of course it's more complex than that, but as a starting point...)

So, if you're dealing with a filing clerk with a functional IQ of 75 in their role - AI might be a better experience for you.

Some of the crap that has been published on the internet in the past 20 years comes to an IQ level below 70 IMO - not saying I want more AI because it's better, just that - relatively speaking - AI is better than some of the pay-for-clickbait garbage that came before it.

[–] Puddinghelmet@lemmy.world 1 points 18 hours ago* (last edited 18 hours ago) (2 children)

Human brains are much more complex than a mirroring script xD The amount of neurons in your brain, AI and supercomputers only have a fraction of that. But you're right, for you its not much different than AI probably

[–] TangledHyphae@lemmy.world 3 points 18 hours ago (5 children)

The human brain contains roughly 86 billion neurons, while ChatGPT, a large language model, has 175 billion parameters (often referred to as "artificial neurons" in the context of neural networks). While ChatGPT has more "neurons" in this sense, it's important to note that these are not the same as biological neurons, and the comparison is not straightforward.

86 billion neurons in the human brain isn't that much compared to some of the larger 1.7 trillion neuron neural networks though.

[–] MangoCats@feddit.it 2 points 17 hours ago

But, are these 1.7 trillion neuron networks available to drive YOUR car? Or are they time-shared among thousands or millions of users?

[–] AppleTea@lemmy.zip 2 points 18 hours ago

It's when you start including structures within cells that the complexity moves beyond anything we're currently capable of computing.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world 28 points 1 day ago (4 children)

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.

This is not a good argument.

[–] fodor@lemmy.zip 4 points 16 hours ago (1 children)

Actually it's a very very brief summary of some philosophical arguments that happened between the 1950s and the 1980s. If you're interested in the topic, you could go read about them.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Simulation6@sopuli.xyz 6 points 23 hours ago (3 children)

The book The Emperors new Mind is old (1989), but it gave a good argument why machine base AI was not possible. Our minds work on a fundamentally different principle then Turing machines.

[–] Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world 11 points 22 hours ago* (last edited 22 hours ago) (3 children)

It's hard to see that books argument from the Wikipedia entry, but I don't see it arguing that intelligence needs to have senses, flesh, nerves, pain and pleasure.

It's just saying computer algorithms are not what humans use for consciousness. Which seems a reasonable conclusion. It doesn't imply computers can't gain consciousness, or that they need flesh and senses to do so.

[–] Simulation6@sopuli.xyz 4 points 20 hours ago (2 children)

I think what he is implying is that current computer design will never be able to gain consciousness. Maybe a fundamentally different type of computer can, but is anything like that even on the horizon?

[–] jwmgregory@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 19 hours ago

possibly.

current machines aren’t really capable of what we would consider sentience because of the von neumann bottleneck.

simply put, computers consider memory and computation separate tasks leading to an explosion in necessary system resources for tasks that would be relatively trivial for a brain-system to do, largely due to things like buffers and memory management code. lots of this is hidden from the engineer and end user these days so people aren’t really super aware of exactly how fucking complex most modern computational systems are.

this is why if, for example, i threw a ball at you you will reflexively catch it, dodge it, or parry it; and your brain will do so for an amount of energy similar to that required to power a simple LED. this is a highly complex physics calculation ran in a very short amount of time for an incredibly low amount of energy relative to the amount of information in the system. the brain is capable of this because your brain doesn’t store information in a chest and later retrieve it like contemporary computers do. brains are turing machines, they just aren’t von neumann machines. in the brain, information is stored… within the actual system itself. the mechanical operation of the brain is so highly optimized that it likely isn’t physically possible to make a much more efficient computer without venturing into the realm of strange quantum mechanics. even then, the verdict is still out on whether or not natural brains don’t do something like this to some degree as well. we know a whole lot about the brain but it seems some damnable incompleteness theorem-adjacent affect prevents us from easily comprehending the actual mechanics of our own brains from inside the brain itself in a wholistic manner.

that’s actually one of the things AI and machine learning might be great for. if it is impossible to explain the human experience from inside of the human experience… then we must build a non-human experience and ask its perspective on the matter - again, simply put.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] merc@sh.itjust.works 26 points 1 day ago (1 children)

The other thing that most people don't focus on is how we train LLMs.

We're basically building something like a spider tailed viper. A spider tailed viper is a kind of snake that has a growth on its tail that looks a lot like a spider. It wiggles it around so it looks like a spider, convincing birds they've found a snack, and when the bird gets close enough the snake strikes and eats the bird.

Now, I'm not saying we're building something that is designed to kill us. But, I am saying that we're putting enormous effort into building something that can fool us into thinking it's intelligent. We're not trying to build something that can do something intelligent. We're instead trying to build something that mimics intelligence.

What we're effectively doing is looking at this thing that mimics a spider, and trying harder and harder to tweak its design so that it looks more and more realistic. What's crazy about that is that we're not building this to fool a predator so that we're not in danger. We're not doing it to fool prey, so we can catch and eat them more easily. We're doing it so we can fool ourselves.

It's like if, instead of a spider-tailed snake, a snake evolved a bird-like tail, and evolution kept tweaking the design so that the tail was more and more likely to fool the snake so it would bite its own tail. Except, evolution doesn't work like that because a snake that ignored actual prey and instead insisted on attacking its own tail would be an evolutionary dead end. Only a truly stupid species like humans would intentionally design something that wasn't intelligent but mimicked intelligence well enough that other humans preferred it to actual information and knowledge.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] benni@lemmy.world 54 points 1 day ago (2 children)

I think we should start by not following this marketing speak. The sentence "AI isn't intelligent" makes no sense. What we mean is "LLMs aren't intelligent".

[–] innermachine@lemmy.world 17 points 1 day ago (8 children)

So couldn't we say LLM's aren't really AI? Cuz that's what I've seen to come to terms with.

[–] TheGrandNagus@lemmy.world 31 points 1 day ago (6 children)

To be fair, the term "AI" has always been used in an extremely vague way.

NPCs in video games, chess computers, or other such tech are not sentient and do not have general intelligence, yet we've been referring to those as "AI" for decades without anybody taking an issue with it.

[–] MajorasMaskForever@lemmy.world 10 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (4 children)

I don't think the term AI has been used in a vague way, it's that there's a huge disconnect between how the technical fields use it vs general populace and marketing groups heavily abuse that disconnect.

Artificial has two meanings/use cases. One is to indicate something is fake (video game NPC, chess bots, vegan cheese). The end product looks close enough to the real thing that for its intended use case it works well enough. Looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, treat it like a duck even though we all know it's a bunny with a costume on. LLMs on a technical level fit this definition.

The other definition is man made. Artificial diamonds are a great example of this, they're still diamonds at the end of the day, they have all the same chemical makeups, same chemical and physical properties. The only difference is they came from a laboratory made by adult workers vs child slave labor.

My pet theory is science fiction got the general populace to think of artificial intelligence to be using the "man-made" definition instead of the "fake" definition that these companies are using. In the past the subtle nuance never caused a problem so we all just kinda ignored it

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments (7 replies)
[–] undeffeined@lemmy.ml 14 points 1 day ago

I make the point to allways refer to it as LLM exactly to make the point that it's not an Inteligence.

[–] elbarto777@lemmy.world 10 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (3 children)

I agreed with most of what you said, except the part where you say that real AI is impossible because it's bodiless or "does not experience hunger" and other stuff. That part does not compute.

A general AI does not need to be conscious.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›