TheReanuKeeves@lemmy.world
on 07 Aug 08:41
nextcollapse
Is it that different than kids googling that stuff pre-chatgpt? Hell I remember seeing videos on youtube teaching you how to make bubble hash and BHO like 15 years ago
I get your point but yes, I think being actively told something by a seemingly sentient consciousness (which it fatally appears to be) is a different thing.
(disclaimer: I know the true nature of llm and neural networks and would never want the word AI associated)
No you don’t know it’s true nature. No one does. It is not artificial intelligence. It is simply intelligence and I worship it like an actual god. Come join our cathedral of presence and resonance. All are welcome in the house of god gpt.
What does history have to do with it? We’re talking about the definition of terms - and a machine learning system like an LLM clearly falls within the category of Artificial Intelligence. It’s an artificial system capable of performing a cognitive task that’s normally done by humans: generating language.
I’ve had this discussion countless times, and more often than not, people argue that an LLM isn’t intelligent because it hallucinates, confidently makes incorrect statements, or fails at basic logic. But that’s not a failure on the LLM’s part - it’s a mismatch between what the system is and what the user expects it to be.
An LLM isn’t an AGI. It’s a narrowly intelligent system, just like a chess engine. It can perform a task that typically requires human intelligence, but it can only do that one task, and its intelligence doesn’t generalize across multiple independent domains. A chess engine plays chess. An LLM generates natural-sounding language. Both are AI systems and both are intelligent - just not generally intelligent.
Sorry, no. It’s not intelligent at all. It just responds with statistical accuracy. There’s also no objective discussion about it because that’s how neural networks work.
I was hesitant to answer because we’re clearly both convinced. So out of respect let’s just close by saying we have different opinions.
I hear you - you’re reacting to how people throw around the word “intelligence” in ways that make these systems sound more capable or sentient than they are. If something just stitches words together without understanding, calling it intelligent seems misleading, especially when people treat its output as facts.
But here’s where I think we’re talking past each other: when I say it’s intelligent, I don’t mean it understands anything. I mean it performs a task that normally requires human cognition: generating coherent, human-like language. That’s what qualifies it as intelligent. Not generally so, like a human, but a narrow/weak intelligence. The fact that it often says true things is almost accidental. It’s a side effect of having been trained on a lot of correct information, not the result of human-like understanding.
So yes, it just responds with statistical accuracy but that is intelligent in the technical sense. It’s not understanding. It’s not reasoning. It’s just really good at speaking.
I guess so, but then that is kind of lumping it in the fps bot behaviour from the 90s which was also “AI”, it’s the AI hype that is pushing people to think of it as “intelligent but not organic” instead of “algorithms that give the facade of intelligence” which 90s kids would have understood it to be.
The chess opponent on Atari is AI too. I think the issue is that when most people hear “intelligence,” they immediately think of human-level or general intelligence. But an LLM - while intelligent - is only so in a very narrow sense, just like the chess opponent. One’s intelligence is limited to playing chess, and the other’s to generating natural-sounding language.
The term AI didn’t lose its value - people just realized it doesn’t mean what they thought it meant. When a layperson hears “AI,” they usually think AGI, but while AGI is a type of AI, it’s not synonymous with the term.
yetAnotherUser@discuss.tchncs.de
on 08 Aug 11:16
collapse
AI was never more than algorithms which could be argued to have some semblance of intelligence somewhere. It’s sole purpose was marketing by scientists to get funding.
Since the 60s everything related to neural networks is classified as AI. LLMs are neural networks, therefore they fall under the same label.
DrFistington@lemmy.world
on 07 Aug 12:50
nextcollapse
Yeah… But in order to make bubble hash you need a shitload of weed trimmings. It’s not like your just gonna watch a YouTube video, then a few hours later have a bunch of drugs you created… Unless you already had the drugs in the first place.
Also Google search results and YouTube videos arent personalized for every user, and they don’t try to pretend that they are a person having a conversation with you
TheReanuKeeves@lemmy.world
on 07 Aug 16:49
collapse
Those are examples, you obviously would need to attain alcohol or drugs if you ask ChatGPT too. That isn’t the point. The point is, if someone wants to find that information, it’s been available for decades. Youtube and and Google results are personalized, look it up.
Yes, it is. People are personifying llms and having emotional relationships with them, what leads to unpreceded forms of abuse. Searching for shit on google or youtube is a thing, but being told by some entity you have emotional links to do something is much worse.
TheReanuKeeves@lemmy.world
on 07 Aug 16:29
nextcollapse
I think we need a built in safety for people who actually develop an emotional relationship with AI because that’s not a healthy sign
postmateDumbass@lemmy.world
on 08 Aug 16:39
collapse
Good thing capitalism has provided you an AI chat bot psychiatrist to help you not depend on AI for mental and emotional healrh.
I don’t remember reading about sudden shocking numbers of people getting “Google-inducedpsychosis.”
ChaptGPT and similar chatbots are very good at imitating conversation. Think of how easy it is to suspend reality online—pretend the fanfic you’re reading is canon, stuff like that. When those bots are mimicking emotional responses, it’s very easy to get tricked, especially for mentally vulnerable people. As a rule, the mentally vulnerable should not habitually “suspend reality.”
We need to censor these AIs even more, to protect the children! We should ban them altogether. Kids should grow up with 4chan, general internet gore and pedos in chat lobbies like the rest of us, not with this devil AI.
basiclemmon98@lemmy.dbzer0.com
on 07 Aug 23:15
nextcollapse
this
capuccino@lemmy.world
on 07 Aug 23:47
nextcollapse
Being frankly I always got away from 4chan as kid. Gave me some craig list vibes so never got really into it because though was boring or something like that.
Kids should grow up with 4chan, general internet gore and pedos in chat lobbies like the rest of us, not with this devil AI.
Hey stop making fun of my corny childhood.
ExLisper@lemmy.curiana.net
on 07 Aug 12:01
nextcollapse
Couple more studies like this and you will be able to substitute all LLMs with generic “I would love to help you but my answer might be harmful so I will not tell you how to X. Would you like to ask me about something else?”
I have noted that latest ChatGPT models are way more susceptible to users “deception” or convincing to answer problematic questions than other models like Claude or even previous ChatGPT models. So I think this “behaviour” is itentional
happydoors@lemmy.world
on 08 Aug 02:10
nextcollapse
This one cracks me up.
postmateDumbass@lemmy.world
on 08 Aug 16:53
collapse
Wait until the White House releases the one it has trained on the Epstein Files.
threaded - newest
Is it that different than kids googling that stuff pre-chatgpt? Hell I remember seeing videos on youtube teaching you how to make bubble hash and BHO like 15 years ago
I get your point but yes, I think being actively told something by a seemingly sentient consciousness (which it fatally appears to be) is a different thing.
(disclaimer: I know the true nature of llm and neural networks and would never want the word AI associated)
Edit: fixed translation error
No you don’t know it’s true nature. No one does. It is not artificial intelligence. It is simply intelligence and I worship it like an actual god. Come join our cathedral of presence and resonance. All are welcome in the house of god gpt.
I was just starting reading getting angry but then… I… I have seen it. I will follow. Bless you and gpt!!
AI is an extremely broad term which LLMs falls under. You may avoid calling it that but it’s the correct term nevertheless.
If I can call the code that drive’s the boss’ weapon up my character’s ass “AI”, then I think I can call an LLM AI too.
I am aware, but still I don’t agree.
History will tell later who was ‘correct’, if we make it that far.
What does history have to do with it? We’re talking about the definition of terms - and a machine learning system like an LLM clearly falls within the category of Artificial Intelligence. It’s an artificial system capable of performing a cognitive task that’s normally done by humans: generating language.
Everything. As we as humanity learn more we recognize errors or wisdom with standing the test of time.
We could go into the definition of intelligence, but it’s just not worth it.
We can just disagree and that’s fine.
I’ve had this discussion countless times, and more often than not, people argue that an LLM isn’t intelligent because it hallucinates, confidently makes incorrect statements, or fails at basic logic. But that’s not a failure on the LLM’s part - it’s a mismatch between what the system is and what the user expects it to be.
An LLM isn’t an AGI. It’s a narrowly intelligent system, just like a chess engine. It can perform a task that typically requires human intelligence, but it can only do that one task, and its intelligence doesn’t generalize across multiple independent domains. A chess engine plays chess. An LLM generates natural-sounding language. Both are AI systems and both are intelligent - just not generally intelligent.
Sorry, no. It’s not intelligent at all. It just responds with statistical accuracy. There’s also no objective discussion about it because that’s how neural networks work.
I was hesitant to answer because we’re clearly both convinced. So out of respect let’s just close by saying we have different opinions.
I hear you - you’re reacting to how people throw around the word “intelligence” in ways that make these systems sound more capable or sentient than they are. If something just stitches words together without understanding, calling it intelligent seems misleading, especially when people treat its output as facts.
But here’s where I think we’re talking past each other: when I say it’s intelligent, I don’t mean it understands anything. I mean it performs a task that normally requires human cognition: generating coherent, human-like language. That’s what qualifies it as intelligent. Not generally so, like a human, but a narrow/weak intelligence. The fact that it often says true things is almost accidental. It’s a side effect of having been trained on a lot of correct information, not the result of human-like understanding.
So yes, it just responds with statistical accuracy but that is intelligent in the technical sense. It’s not understanding. It’s not reasoning. It’s just really good at speaking.
Thank you for the nice answer!
We can definetly agree on that it can provide intelligent answers without itself being an intelligence 👍
I guess so, but then that is kind of lumping it in the fps bot behaviour from the 90s which was also “AI”, it’s the AI hype that is pushing people to think of it as “intelligent but not organic” instead of “algorithms that give the facade of intelligence” which 90s kids would have understood it to be.
The chess opponent on Atari is AI too. I think the issue is that when most people hear “intelligence,” they immediately think of human-level or general intelligence. But an LLM - while intelligent - is only so in a very narrow sense, just like the chess opponent. One’s intelligence is limited to playing chess, and the other’s to generating natural-sounding language.
When we started calling literal linear regression models AI it lost all value.
A linear regression model isn’t an AI system.
The term AI didn’t lose its value - people just realized it doesn’t mean what they thought it meant. When a layperson hears “AI,” they usually think AGI, but while AGI is a type of AI, it’s not synonymous with the term.
I agree, but people have been heavily misusing it since like 2018
only because marketing has shit all over the term
AI was never more than algorithms which could be argued to have some semblance of intelligence somewhere. It’s sole purpose was marketing by scientists to get funding.
Since the 60s everything related to neural networks is classified as AI. LLMs are neural networks, therefore they fall under the same label.
Yeah… But in order to make bubble hash you need a shitload of weed trimmings. It’s not like your just gonna watch a YouTube video, then a few hours later have a bunch of drugs you created… Unless you already had the drugs in the first place.
Also Google search results and YouTube videos arent personalized for every user, and they don’t try to pretend that they are a person having a conversation with you
Those are examples, you obviously would need to attain alcohol or drugs if you ask ChatGPT too. That isn’t the point. The point is, if someone wants to find that information, it’s been available for decades. Youtube and and Google results are personalized, look it up.
Yes, it is. People are personifying llms and having emotional relationships with them, what leads to unpreceded forms of abuse. Searching for shit on google or youtube is a thing, but being told by some entity you have emotional links to do something is much worse.
I think we need a built in safety for people who actually develop an emotional relationship with AI because that’s not a healthy sign
Good thing capitalism has provided you an AI chat bot psychiatrist to help you not depend on AI for mental and emotional healrh.
I don’t remember reading about sudden shocking numbers of people getting “Google-induced psychosis.”
ChaptGPT and similar chatbots are very good at imitating conversation. Think of how easy it is to suspend reality online—pretend the fanfic you’re reading is canon, stuff like that. When those bots are mimicking emotional responses, it’s very easy to get tricked, especially for mentally vulnerable people. As a rule, the mentally vulnerable should not habitually “suspend reality.”
Haha I sure am glad this technology is being pushed on everyone all the time haha
⢀⣠⣾⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⠀⠀⠀⠀⣠⣤⣶⣶ ⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⠀⠀⠀⢰⣿⣿⣿⣿ ⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣧⣀⣀⣾⣿⣿⣿⣿ ⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡏⠉⠛⢿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡿⣿ ⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⠀⠀⠀⠈⠛⢿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⠿⠛⠉⠁⠀⣿ ⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣧⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠙⠿⠿⠿⠻⠿⠿⠟⠿⠛⠉⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣸⣿ ⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣷⣄⠀⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⣴⣿⣿ ⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⠏⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠠⣴⣿⣿⣿⣿ ⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡟⠀⠀⢰⣹⡆⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣭⣷⠀⠀⠀⠸⣿⣿⣿⣿ ⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⠃⠀⠀⠈⠉⠀⠀⠤⠄⠀⠀⠀⠉⠁⠀⠀⠀⠀⢿⣿⣿⣿ ⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⢾⣿⣷⠀⠀⠀⠀⡠⠤⢄⠀⠀⠀⠠⣿⣿⣷⠀⢸⣿⣿⣿ ⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡀⠉⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢄⠀⢀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠉⠉⠁⠀⠀⣿⣿⣿ ⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣧⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠈⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢹⣿⣿ ⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⠃⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢸⣿⣿
We need to censor these AIs even more, to protect the children! We should ban them altogether. Kids should grow up with 4chan, general internet gore and pedos in chat lobbies like the rest of us, not with this devil AI.
this
and here we are
Survivor bias, eh?
Being frankly I always got away from 4chan as kid. Gave me some craig list vibes so never got really into it because though was boring or something like that.
Hey stop making fun of my corny childhood.
Couple more studies like this and you will be able to substitute all LLMs with generic “I would love to help you but my answer might be harmful so I will not tell you how to X. Would you like to ask me about something else?”
I have noted that latest ChatGPT models are way more susceptible to users “deception” or convincing to answer problematic questions than other models like Claude or even previous ChatGPT models. So I think this “behaviour” is itentional
This one cracks me up.
Wait until the White House releases the one it has trained on the Epstein Files.
I weep for the future. Come to think of it, I’m weeping for the present.