101–110 of 264 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A couple decades of chess programs nods knowingly: "First time?"
A couple decades of chess programs nods knowingly: "First time?" Uh huh. Good luck getting Stockfish to do your math homework while Leela works on your next waifu. LLMs play chess poorly. Chess engines do nothing else at all. That's kind of a big difference, wouldn't you say?
[stub for offtopicness] (in this case, thinkiness)
I love the idea of educating students on the math behind AI to demystify them. But I think it's a little weird to assert "AI is not magic and AI systems do not think. It’s just maths." Equivalent statements could be made about how human brains are not magic, just biology - yet I think we still think.
[stub for offtopicness] (in this case, thinkiness)
- ragebait them by saying AIs don’t think
- …
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I love the idea of educating students on the math behind AI to demystify them. But I think it's a little weird to assert "AI is not magic and AI systems do not think. It’s just maths." Equivalent statements could be made about how human brains are not magic, just biology - yet I think we still think.
Yeah. This whole AI situation has really exposed how bad most people are at considering the ontological and semantic content of the words they use.
You'd think it would unlock certain concepts for this class of people, but ironically, they seem unable to digest the information and update their context.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's no reason to believe this to be the case. Godel says otherwise.
Please explain, because this interpetation of "Godel" is highly nonstandard.
if there's surely no algo to solve the halting problem, why would there be maths that describes consciousness?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Equivalent statements could be made about how human brains are not magic, just biology - yet I think we still think. They're not equivalent at all because the AI is by no means biological. "It's just maths" could maybe be applied to humans but this is backed entirely by supposition and would ultimately just be an assumption of its own conclusion - that human brains work on the same underlying principles as AI becaus…
Well, a better retort would be "Human brains are not magic, just physics. Protons, neutrons and electrons don't think". But I think most people get what GP means.
[stub for offtopicness] (in this case, thinkiness)
I love the idea of educating students on the math behind AI to demystify them. But I think it's a little weird to assert "AI is not magic and AI systems do not think. It’s just maths." Equivalent statements could be made about how human brains are not magic, just biology - yet I think we still think.
But the accompanying XY plot showed samples that overlapped or at least were ambiguous. I immediately lost a lot of my interest in their approach, because traffic lights by design are very clearly red, or green. There aren't mauve or taupe lights that the local populace laughs at and says, "yes, that's mostly red."
I like the idea of studying math by using ML examples. I'm guessing this is a first step and future education will have better examples to learn from.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Someone asserts, almost religiously, that LLMs do and/or can "think." When asked how to falsify their assertion, perhaps by explaining what exactly is "thinking" in the human brain that can and/or will be possible to emulate...
Or they just point to the turing test which was the defacto standard test for something so nebulous. And behold: LLM can pass the turing test. So they think. Can you come up with something better (than the turing test)?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If it comes to the correct answer I don't particularly care how it got there.
In most cases, you don’t know if it came to the correct answer.
If you're asking for things you can't easily verify you're barking up the wrong tree.