Re:AI Is the Black Mirror
by tim333 on Sunday December 22, 2024 @09:04AM
(#42486378)
Philosophers and AI slop have quite a lot in common. A lot of sticking good sounding words together without really understanding how the underlying thing works, computers in this case. Really the:
>They are, however, very good at pretending to reason. “We can ask [them], ‘How did you come to that conclusion?’ and [they] just bullshit a whole chain of thought that, if you press on it, will collapse into nonsense very quickly.
Could apply to both. You can see a contrast with the thinking of Turing, a mathematician:
>Her view collides with the 1950 paper by British mathematician and computer pioneer Alan Turing, “Computing machinery and Intelligence,” often regarded as the conceptual foundation of AI. Turing asked the question: “Can machines think?”—only to replace it with what he considered to be a better question, which was whether we might develop machines that could give responses to questions we’d be unable to distinguish from those of humans.
You can see a mathematician trained in rigor and proof recognises that "can they think" turns into waffle about how you define think and replaces it with a less subjective test.
>They are, however, very good at pretending to reason. “We can ask [them], ‘How did you come to that conclusion?’ and [they] just bullshit a whole chain of thought that, if you press on it, will collapse into nonsense very quickly.
Could apply to both. You can see a contrast with the thinking of Turing, a mathematician:
>Her view collides with the 1950 paper by British mathematician and computer pioneer Alan Turing, “Computing machinery and Intelligence,” often regarded as the conceptual foundation of AI. Turing asked the question: “Can machines think?”—only to replace it with what he considered to be a better question, which was whether we might develop machines that could give responses to questions we’d be unable to distinguish from those of humans.
You can see a mathematician trained in rigor and proof recognises that "can they think" turns into waffle about how you define think and replaces it with a less subjective test.