There Is No A.I.

Re:There Is No A.I. by sammycage on Thursday June 19, 2025 @09:13AM (#44318414)

I appreciate Lanier’s reminder that AI is ultimately a collective artifact, not an independent mind. Calling it "large language social collaboration" might be clunky, but the point is fair: what we label "AI" is just our accumulated digital patterns, recombined.

I do wonder, though. At what point does the remixing and generalization become more than just a mirror of us? Even if it is still trained on human work, its behavior can surprise us in ways that feel alien.

Curious if others here agree: is the term "AI" just marketing hype, or is it still useful shorthand for systems whose emergent properties we do not fully control?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:There Is No A.I. by cratermoon on Thursday June 19, 2025 @10:06AM (#44318807)

My objection to calling it collaboration is that the contributors were not given a choice of whether or not to participate. To collaborate is to voluntarily join with others and contribute willingly. The current crop of LLM models were created from large-scale appropriation of the works of others without consent.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:There Is No A.I. by squircle on Thursday June 19, 2025 @11:14AM (#44319439)

This is a poignant observation. What if there was real tender love and care put into gathering these training materials? (Y'know, truly free and open source, with a deep understanding of what it means to be human.) If you are working on this, we should talk.

[ Parent | on HN ]