It’s really good at making us feel like it’s intelligent, but that’s no more real than a good VR headset convincing us to walk into a physical wall.

It’s a meta version of VR.

(Meta meta, if you will.)

  • MotoAsh@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    13 days ago

    But it’s not simulated intelligence. It’s literally just word association on steroids. There are no thoughts it brings to the table, just words that mathematically fit following the prompts.

    • Zos_Kia@lemmynsfw.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      12 days ago

      It’s not just statistics. To produce a somewhat coherent sentence in English you need a model of the English language AND a world model.

      If you ask a question like “an apple is on a glass, what happens if I remove the glass”, the correct answer (“the apple will fall”) is not a statistical property of the English language, but an emergent property of the world model.

    • oce 🐆@jlai.lu
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      13 days ago

      Where do you draw the line for intelligence? Why would the capacity to auto complete tokens based on learned probabilities not qualify as intelligence?
      This capacity may be part of human intelligence too.

      • 9bananas@feddit.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        12 days ago

        when it can come up with a solution it hasn’t seen before.

        that’s the threshold.

        that’s the threshold for creative problem solving, which isn’t all there is to intelligence, but i think it’s fair to say it’s the most crucial part for a machine intelligence.

        • lendra@feddit.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          12 days ago

          It can come up with a brand new sentence that hasn’t been written before. Does that count?

          Maybe you mean a solution to a textbook math/physics problem, it most likely would be able to solve that too with tool use.

          Or maybe you mean solving something like the Riemann Hypothesis?

    • JohnnyCanuck@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      13 days ago

      A simulation doesn’t have to be the actual thing. It implies it literally isn’t the true thing, which is kind of what you’re saying.

      Simulated Intelligence is certainly more accurate and honest than Artificial Intelligence. If you have a better term, what is it?

      • MotoAsh@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        10 days ago

        No, it’s not simulating the intelligence part. It’s a mimicry at best that idiots anthropomorphise and misunderstand as a simulation.

          • MotoAsh@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            10 days ago

            Immitation and simulation are not the same thing as they’re being used in this discussion. You’re literally arguing semantics to try and win, which means you have no logical point on which to stand.

            • JohnnyCanuck@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              9 days ago

              I’m not trying to “win” anything, don’t try to dismiss me because you perceive you’re “losing” and you don’t understand word definitions.

              Do you even know what semantics is? Do you want me to give you the definition of that, too? If you’re going to use it as a pejorative, you better learn the meaning of the word.

              I’m telling you what the definition of simulation is so you understand why some of us are saying why Simulated Intelligence is the correct term, literally, since you seem focused on the literal. You’re the one who started arguing semantics (in your first comment), but got it wrong, by implying a simulation had to be the actual thing (“literally”) . Then I showed you that the definition of simulation is that it is an imitation, not the actual thing and you say I’m arguing “semantics”. Well yeah, that’s what we’re doing here, we’re both arguing the semantics of what it means to be Simulated Intelligence. If that’s not what you’re doing, then why did you comment at all?

              The whole point of creating a simulation is that it doesn’t take the same amount of work as the actual thing, but it can - and it doesn’t have to be perfect - make you think it is the real thing. If it was perfect, then you’re done, you don’t have to make the real thing, and it’s no longer a simulation.

              A flight simulator doesn’t actually fly. If it did, it would be an airplane.

              Simulated Intelligence doesn’t actually have to be intelligent. If it was, it would be (Artificial) Intelligence.

              You can say what we have is a bad simulation, but it’s still a simulation, and it’s a much better simulation than it is real intelligence. So Simulated Intelligence is the correct term.