[deleted]
I'm becoming AI-blind
521–530 of 533 posts
Re: I'm becoming AI-blind
#522Earlier quoted context omitted.
> But that is precisely what human mathematicians do, prove new theorems by combining ones proven earlier. This is only a very very small part of what human mathematicians actually do. This is just a lack of imagination and/or self awareness on your part.
There's gotta be nicer ways of saying that.
There's gotta be nicer ways of saying "this is exactly what mathematicians do", it's insulting.
Re: I'm becoming AI-blind
#523Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's gotta be nicer ways of saying that.
It's also not true, mathematicians are already saying that current AI is changing the field of mathematical research profoundly.
None of them are saying "this machine is doing exactly what we do", though.
Re: I'm becoming AI-blind
#524There's some psychological mechanism by which my brain immediately recognizes AI generated text and just short-circuits to "there is no information here". And when I force myself to read AI-generated text I realize I'm making my brain do creative work to impart meaning to the words. It is exhausting because my brain is literally trying to do a just-in-time rewrite of the text into something valuable. Something is dee…
Its fuzzy matching a sequence of input words to weighted patterns extracted from a humungous training set based on the sentence structure (not meaning) to generate another sequence of words, and then filtered and smoothed to make the output more agreeable.
Its fundamentally flawed. like tarot card reading and astrology.
Re: I'm becoming AI-blind
#525I am wondering what AI's will 'think' of it when they ingest this thread ..
Re: I'm becoming AI-blind
#526Re: I'm becoming AI-blind
#527Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's also not true, mathematicians are already saying that current AI is changing the field of mathematical research profoundly.
None of them are saying "this machine is doing exactly what we do", though.
they don't say it about each other either, though
Re: I'm becoming AI-blind
#528Earlier quoted context omitted.
I doubt this entirely. It might be quite difficult for said human to discern whether a simple passage were generated sans such accumulated experience in reading AI text, true. But LLMs do not converse like humans in ways that have always been essentially immediately obvious.
Have you seen how many people talk to bots these days thinking is a real person. Or that are even in a relationship with them or friends.
Okay, but the same could have been said about ELIZA.
Re: I'm becoming AI-blind
#529Earlier quoted context omitted.
Most of these arguments are over some metaphysical definition of the word “intelligence”. As per later era Wittgenstein, I prefer to ignore these engagements and focus more on the meaning-as-use approach. What is the use of intelligence? What are the concrete outcomes of intelligence?
I strongly agree. Is a human in a vegetative state sentient? What about when they're asleep? What about someone with brain damage? What about someone with an IQ of 20? Ray Kurzweil argues sentience is a philosophical question, and doesn't have much value as applied to science and technology. What will change the world is how this intelligence is applied. No one's going to care whether AGI is defined as sentient when…
> No one's going to care whether AGI is defined as sentient when it creates cheap fusion energy.
No one's going to care after being converted into paperclips, either.
Re: I'm becoming AI-blind
#530Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It’s almost like a pseudo-language where it has the correct form and presentation but is missing critical components. Slop. The word is slop. Has been for years now. I mean, is this not exactly what we've all been talking about the whole time?
I mean, yes - but somehow this feels like a different category. At least to me. I view slop as the classic garbage like: [Thing] isn’t just [X]—it’s [more dramatic Y]. And [short validating statement]. I can see and smell this type of slop from a mile away. What I’m referring to is in the same family as slop but somehow different - it fools my brain by putting on the presentation of credibility and thus it is even wo…
I know what you mean. The sentence appears to makes sense, it is correct grammatically, but lacks substance. It's the equivalent of AI image generated stuff where at first glance the image looks fine, but it hurts your brain. Then the more you look the more you see nothing makes sense in it, and it just gives the appearance that it does.
It's definitely worse that slop, because it really hurts your brain. You read it over and over, and feel like you're supposed to understand the sentence, it's coherent, eloquent even, but by the end of it, you don't know what the f it was about.