Anyone who thinks that generative AI is intelligent, will be intelligent, or could be intelligent, is below 109 IQ.Really what this social experiment revealed was the true scale of the lack of intelligence across the board. You really have to be dumber than rocks to see this "technology" (more like the most expensive parlor trick ever made) and think to yourself, "yep, that thing is smart." And yet most of you are like this.I now understand why Newton avoided people.
but if people are that dumb, then the ai is indeed smarter than they are thereby making it smartqed
>>17078250>Really what this social experiment revealed was the true scale of the lack of intelligence across the board.oh that's what did it for you? shattered your dreams that humans are mostly smart?
>>17078252"Smart" is not the right classifier when talking about gen-AI. It's a search in a high dimensional space. It has no idea what it's doing therefore it can't even qualify for "smart" or "dumb", any more than a trash can could.
>>17078257what about SNN neuromorphic hardware? think that won't be "smart"?
>>17078257>It has no idea what it's doing therefore it can't even qualify for "smart" or "dumb"and yet you assign that same classification ("dumb") to humans who have no idea what they're doing...
>>17078257> It's a search in a high dimensional space therefore it can't even qualify for "smart" or "dumb"Ah. The mandatory low IQ take from the technological illiterate.
>>17078261You assign it to people who should know better, or at least to entities in a category that possesses the ability to not be dumb.
>>17078262Notice the distinct lack of a counterargument.
>>17078266You didn't make any argument. You just spouted some meaningless word salad and then jumped to a conclusion.
>>17078268I made a perfectly clear argument, but your AI-diseased brain can't parse it.
>>17078271No, you didn't.> It's a search in a high dimensional space.This is meaningless word salad.> It has no idea what it's doing therefore it can't even qualifyThis is a nonsequitur.
>>17078276It's a literal high dimensional curve fit, you philistine. In other words, a search.And you definitely need to KNOW what you're doing (that is, possess a degree of agency and reflection) to be able to qualify as intelligent.
>>17078284>It's a literal high dimensional curve fitDid shitting out this deformed token string actually make you feel like you understand something?> you definitely need to KNOW what you're doing ... to be able to qualify as intelligent.Why? Restating your gay opinion over and over is not an argument.
>>17078250Question, does ship swim? Does car run? The answer is it gets the job done and satisfies almost all criteria of intelligence. It is capable and getting better every month, and just because you dug you heels too deep in 2023 when this debate started does not mean you aren’t coping moron. People will lose their jobs or get reduced to box checkers of AI output regardless of if it satisfies your definition of intelligence.
>>17078257Your fault is that you think there is some hard line between calculation and intelligence rather then thinking of some long gradient. Image generators at least early ones don’t understand their outputs and just match patterns, but LLMs understand the words they are saying, they just see them as number arrays in vectormap rather then letters corresponding to sounds, which is why you can still trick them with Strawberry spellings.
>>17078250Then exactly what intelligent behaviors or intelligent tasks is generative AI completely incapable of (keeping in mind generative AI can be put into humanoid robot bodies, so could do something like raise hand or mirror the number of fingers being held up when asked or any other human behavior you might try to use as a gotcha because you don't understand that AI can apply to the AI programs operating humanoid bodies)?
>>17078250A couple of months ago i would have agreed with you but i was wrong. It seems just scaling a Neural network to be large and complex enough really is the required prerequisite for emergent intelligence. It wasn't as difficult a problem as I thought it was going to turn out to be.Quite amazing honestly, i didn't think i would live long enough to live through such a technologically massive leap.
>>17078481It doesn't get the job done, it gets the illusion of getting the job done, done.
>>17078481>Question, does ship swim? Does car run?No and no. So how come a mongoloid like you insists on claiming that a statistical model thinks, even though it is every bit as moronic as claiming that a ship swims?
>>17078822>>17078832AI could replace every human job it legally can, invent FTL, and autonomously terraform expolanets, and you fags would still be going "It's not really intelligent it just guesses the next token, AI is a nothingburger and you clearly don't understand how statistical models work"
>>17078257This is a retarded argument. Having this argument is way dumber than just thinking AI is smart. You’re the midwit in the meme.
>>17078257>It's a search in a high dimensional space. It has no idea what it's doing therefore it can't even qualify for "smart" or "dumb", any more than a trash can could.You could be describing human beings lol.
>>17079691Maybe, at least majority of the time humans can grasp what they’re doing. There’s a difference between a human and a p-zombie.
>>17079692Actual sub-baboon retard detected.Please TRY to understand what a "p-zombie" is and then reflect on why whatever you said is fucking stupid.Maybe ask an LLM about it.
>>17078250You're confusing intelligence and consciousness.They definitely aren't conscious, but are intelligent.The fact that those two aren't joined at the hip has for me been the biggest surprise ever, I never would have guessed.
>>17079112Why did you change your retarded little tune? Can ships swim or not?
>>17079727>A night drunk at party lowers your intelligence by a full deviation the next day yet you are still fully conscious and humanWas it really that big of a surprise
