/int/ - *Ominous shitposting in the distance*

>It is statistics with a pseudo random number generator on top to induce variations
1. Yes, it is.
2. How does it exclude intelligence?
3. In which way our brains are fundamentally better?

>>11296
>>11295

And we have the first philosophical problem. What or how is intelligence? I say philosophical because it is a concept

t. humanities Ernst.

Catherine Malabou has an interesting book on the concept of intelligence and she develops her own concept of it, which I think is quite nice. I will try to sum it up in a later post since I had to do a presentation on it in the past.

Generally it is a good idea to have a thread on it. There can be said a lot about it.

>>11296
> 2. How does it exclude intelligence?
>>11297
I've recently read an analyses that tried to compare current A.I. with human intelligence. It chopped intelligence in different subcategories, which I can't quite remember now. iirc, it basically was something like "A.I. is good with finding patterns and similarities within a lot of data points, even slightly better then the average human, but A.I. can't even do some other simple tasks every child can do."

> 3. In which way our brains are fundamentally better?
I seriously do not feel qualified to answer this question, since I don't even have beginner biology student level understanding of carbon based lifeforms; much less specialized knowledge about how the brain functions. Because of that I can only work with things I see emerging from these biological structures.
I would argue the parts we would describe as "intelligence" within A.I. are superimposed by the creator of the reward function(s) evaluating and guiding the pseudo random number variations. It is not inherent to the A.I.. You just get a watered down version of the intelligence of the developer, who uses tons of data points and iterations to get a very niche and limited statistical average, which can afterwards be applied to only similar data points the model has been trained with.
Another point I would somewhat ascribe to intelligence would be creativity; the act of creating something, that hasn't been before - not mere combining of things which already have been. I do not see our current tools reaching this point any time soon.

Energy efficiency is another point I would describe our brains as "fundamentally being better" at. Though, that might not be too fundamental and just a really huge difference.

Another big problem I see: consciousness.
> cogito ergo sum.
We have no idea where or how "I" is; we just know "I" has to be. Can intelligence be without a consciousness? e.g. are honey combs intelligent? Honey bees do not build hexagonal tubes; they build round ones. Yet, honey combs form as an emergence pattern following physical rules increasing the volume they can hold while minimizing the material needed and being structural robust. This clearly is intelligent behaviour, yes?

Can something display intelligent behaviour without having intelligence of its own?

Today I realized that humanity will ne destroyed by AI because we neglect Asimovs Laws of Robotics in order to have BDSM AI roboters. Pic related.

Also I played the Universal Paperclips browser game lately, give it a try if you haven't heard of it.

In honesty I think we are still very far away from AI posing an actual threat unless you work in lower journalism or photography etc. and that it's blown out of proportion.

>>11297
I will no expand as we are already talking about technicalities.

So from what I gathered of the third chapter the title of that chapter is: Like a Pollock Painting of her book:

First of all, she references heavily on John Dewey, an American Pragmatist lived around 1900 I think up until the 1930s or 1940s maybe even longer dunno.
Her concept of intelligence is a sort of development of Dewey's concept of intelligence and is cordoned off from two other concepts of intelligence: one is a concept of intelligence as simply genetic and measurable with the IQ test and the other is an epigenetic intelligence concept that sets intelligence in dependence to environmental factors which conceptualizes intelligence as contingent (in contrast to the solely genetic one).

Intelligence is for her and coming from Dewey is something sort of like a habit. A method to solve problems and a method that can solve its own problems in a way by reorganizing, and interrupting your own pattern/habit:

>Without contradicting itself, the automatism of intelligence thus appears as the mechanism able to interrupt its own routine (the rigid repetition of its habits) without becoming anything other than an automatism (an autonomous process). (108)

Intelligence is what can rework the method of intelligence itself. The book among other things is trying to argue that this definition of intelligence makes it possible to dissolve the boundary between people and machines. A machine that can interrupt it's own intelligent behavior to solve problem in a different way might then be called intelligent.


There can be said more about the concept than I am doing here but it is late and I am tired and maybe I misrepresented a few things that way.

>>11304
I've come up with better explanation of my point. When you say that "AI is just a statistics" it's like saying that "brain is just a chemical reaction" or "poem is just a sequence of letters" or "your favorite hentai is just a sequence of 0-s and 1-s on disk". Formally true, but complex and meaningful things can be a combination of many trivial elements.

> I would argue the parts we would describe as "intelligence" within A.I. are superimposed by the creator of the reward function(s) evaluating and guiding the pseudo random number variations. It is not inherent to the A.I..
In case of humans it would mean that actual intelligence is "superimposed" by evolution rewarding us for survival and reproduction and not inherit to us.

> You just get a watered down version of the intelligence of the developer, who uses tons of data points and iterations
No. If you can come up with formula like "let reward function be logarithm of probability of predicting next token", it doesn't mean that you have "concentrated knowledge" of the model which you've trained. You may argue that data has this knowledge, but then again it'll bring you to the question whether our knowledge is inherit to us or just derived from experience of universe around us.

> to get a very niche and limited statistical average, which can afterwards be applied to only similar data points the model has been trained with
Model generalizes patterns it sees in training data and can work with something it hasn't seen before by extrapolating older experience. Of course it can't work with something entirely new, but then again, can you? I think not. You'll have to try, to fuck around and find out, to gather some experience about new phenomena and then act according to that experience.

> Another point I would somewhat ascribe to intelligence would be creativity; the act of creating something, that hasn't been before - not mere combining of things which already have been. I do not see our current tools reaching this point any time soon.
It raises the question of whether humans are able to create something new of the thin air. Or do they just incrementally create new things by combining old ones until you can't recognize initial inspirations in the final result.

> Another big problem I see: consciousness.
Why do you think that AI doesn't have it? Consciousness is something unverifiable in physical universe. I can only sure be about my own consciousness. And since I don't think that I'm special, I assume that other humans have it too.

What modern AI lacks in my opinion compared to humans is logical thinking. Which is funny because classical AI such as theorem proovers has merely this type of intellect. Maybe the future is combining these two approaches.
Also it has bad short-term memory but probably it's solvable by better architectures.

>>11296
because human minds don't work the way language models do
this is not an opinion, it is how it be
ergo, current AIs are not like minds.

this is just a terminal case of "the human mind is just like a [insert the most advanced technology humans have invented so far"

>>11321
>When you say that "AI is just a statistics" it's like saying that "brain is just a chemical reaction" or "poem is just a sequence of letters" or "your favorite hentai is just a sequence of 0-s and 1-s on disk"
the difference is that AI really is just statistics, and brains chemical reactions can do much more things than statistics (in fact, brains are pretty bad at statistics), and poems aren't written by trying to predict a piece of text that looks like a poem according to some function, and AI porn sucks.

>>11337
Poems are written exactly like you say. Pretty has some metric embedded in his brain that measures the poem-ness of a list of tokens, he them tries to create a list of tokens that maximizes the function.

You are a hopeless romantic and you are wrong. I think I will let AI do my shit posting from now on, no one will be the wiser and it will insult all of you much better than I ever could.

>>11337
> because human minds don't work the way language models do
I agree. Language model are much less anthropomorphic than they appear to be. But I haven't claimed otherwise, I asked "how is chemical reaction better than statistics", not "how is it different".

> brains chemical reactions can do much more things than statistics
This is not obvious to me, for example who would have thought that drawing pictures by description is "just a statistics".

People who think LLMs are "just statistics" should take a few minutes to look at the actual math involed. It's not "just statistics".

But that doesn't mean LLMs are "like human brains", they are not. Too tired right now to go into a long explanation, it has to do with structure of networks being different at the very least. They are more different than just that, but one significant difference is already enough to say that they aren't the same either way.

>>11390
Who cares about what goes inside. Results speak for themselves. I agree: LLMs are not like human brains, they are far superior.

>>11390
>People who think LLMs are "just statistics" should take a few minutes to look at the actual math involed. It's not "just statistics".
But I took weeks to look at actual math involved. =D
OK, it subjective and depends on how broad do you define "just a statistics".

Pretty interesting reading btw. In math you look at extremely complex theorem and it was proved by some faggot in wig 400 years ago who didn't even have modern algebraic notation. In ML very simple and beautiful heuristics can be invented 2 years ago. "Wow, that could be me..."

Also almost nothing is proven strictly, everything is intuitive. Working as ML engineer must be a mess, there is no sure way to know what will work and what won't, you make educated guess, wait for the model to train (from few minutes to weeks depending on the model) and look whether metrics go up.

>>11392
>LLMs are not like human brains, they are far superior.
Not until they have been linked with the blockchain, they aren't.

>>11356
>drawing pictures by description is "just a statistics".
The "by description" part is a deception and a brilliant marketing tactic.

If you've tried to generate a very specific picture with AI image generators, you will reach a point where you're not "describing" anything per se, but trying to trick it into generating the thing you want.
It's the same mode of interaction as trying to trick Google search giving you a page that isn't a SEO optimized AI generated blog, or trying to get the Gelbooru tag system to give you one specific image you remember masturbating to 5 years ago: a decidedly non-linguistic, digital form of interaction.

That's because the prompts are not "descriptions", they're a text based interface for turning the knobs on various weights in the input.
One example of a thing you can explain by an actual human description, but can't do with prompts, is specifying the spatial relationship, position and rotation of the objects in the image. Because nobody bothered to tag the original dataset of images with such things.

Again, what AI's do can not be called "drawing", in that it's only a subset of all the things humans can do when they draw. It's very good and much better than humans at that subset of things, but it's not really "drawing by description".

>>11419
>That's because the prompts are not "descriptions", they're a text based interface for turning the knobs on various weights in the input.
Same on human artists.

You ask them to draw a portray of Jennifer Aniston, then they will generate something that optimizes for activation of their Jennifer-Aniston-Neuron.

Pathetic dumb people desperately cling to the notion that human brains are special in some undefined way, maybe they even think there is some 'divine spark' in humans. LOL, NO. You are pieces of shit, and inherently worthtless, like all humans.

Turturing every living human being to death is no different from switching of an instance of an LLM, the existence of humans is as value-neutral as the existence of the next best grain of dirt.

I'm genuinly glad that LLMs will force more people to accept this reality!

>>11430
I find it interesting how worth comes into play here. Schizometrics and incelitis.


>then they will generate something that optimizes for activation of their Jennifer-Aniston-Neuron.

Depends on the artist what they understand as optimal performance. Are LLMs capable of optimizing for various outcomes or are their bound to their human creators to change that?

>>11433
>u an incel u schizo is a premise from which i can deduce everything i like xddd
>don't even have to check if its factual
>and i can diagnose people online from posts bc i am very very smart
Could you at least try to proof that you are worth wasting my time on you? The things I would like to say about you would get me banned instantly, but I think I will get away with insinuating that a gas chamber is too good for you.

>>11434
You just proved it yourself. No need to waste more energy on you than necessary, bro.

>>11434
It was going the inductive route btw.

Only people who see their job being threatened by "A.I." are categorizing it as something "intelligent" or try to argue humans are just as stupid.

No, it is not. You are just a stupid subhuman and always have been. It is now just plainly obvious for everyone and you try to cope with it via attributing things you wish you had yourself to an "A.I.".

>>11438
>Only people who see their job being threatened by "A.I." are categorizing it as something "intelligent"
lol, it's going to be so much fun when all the computer-"scientists", software-"architects", software-"engineers" and so on fall of their high horses and get put in the menial labor jobs where they belong, the fucking assburgers!

>>11439
it is so clear, that you have no understanding of what you are talking about.

I want to explain your stupidity with an analogy.
Imagine we were not talking about the tool "A.I." but about another tool: a kitchen knife.

Your understanding of the kitchen knife is non-existent. You would try to grab it by the blade and use the handle to bash someones skull in failing to realize the tool is designed for a whole different purpose. Everything is a club, because all you ever did is bash your head against a wall and therefor everything you see is a tool for helping you hitting your or other skulls.

>>11440
It's clear that you don't understand what AI is capable of. Are you sofware-'Architect' or something like it? Because that would explain your denial. In one thing you are right: it will replace people like you!

>>11442
>as well
It will not replace me, because I have a real job.

>>11443
oh, fugg... you are the Ernst without any reading comprehension. I should've noticed before.
Sorry, but going forward I am going to simply ignore you. Your responses are even less relevant as if I was prompting an LLM.
I know I am trigger happy and post too quickly, but interacting with you really isn't going anywhere. Might as well leave your stupidity up without correcting it.
> I have a real job.
I'm sure you do. It's prolly as much a "real" job as your idea of killing humans is the "real" solution to help humanity.

>>11443
At some point ai will learn to empty trash cans and pick up dog poo.

I'm this cat

Inspired by
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eRUElTtr8Q8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2q_mCPd5nIU

Suppose that in future good brain-computer interfaces will be developed. And AI will be smart enough to do blue collar job (already is?). BUT there won't be good and cheap mechanical arms/legs with proper motor skill.

THEN the most viable economic solution would'be: don't teach blue collars to do their jobs, just rent their body for 8/5 and attach it to neuralink. So instead of cyborgs (human brain and machine body) we'll have anti-cyborgs (human body and machine brain).

Is there a sci-fi about such a thing?

>>11846
What will the AI do better than the blue-collar worker? If you have to rent the bodies why spend money on an interface that brings no advantage to the human? Just pay the human instead of paying for the interface and its maintenance, AI and the body for the AI.

To me, this sounds like "I, Robot" but they don't have the resources to build the robots proper.

Also, I think both would be cyborgs, cybernetic organisms. People-Machine hybrids either way.

t. did not click the links

>>11847
What is easier and cheaper?
a) teach man to be a plumber or a fitterman
b) stick 100 euro worth device into his heda

>>11847
>What will the AI do better than the blue-collar worker?
Coordination and focus. Imagine a warehouse or factory floor where humans move loads with the efficiency of ants in a hive. No rest or socialization, only continual movement as tasks are completed and new tasks seamlessly assigned. They can even be programmed to carry their dead brethren away so that shareholder value isn't negatively impacted by emotion or unexpected obstacles.

>did not click the links
A shame.

If you think of it, delivery guys are already anti-cyborgs. Orders are distributed and given to them by algorithm, also they probably use in-app navigator to commute. All their skill which is not outsourced to machines is motorics, having legs.
But their job is braindead anyway, so it doesn't really count.

AI is bottled human mediocracy thanks to technology

>>11978
And you (like everyone else) believe to be not mediocre, and thus irreplaceable? AI can and will replace 90% of jobs, paupers are going to be fucked.

>>11982
I'm a human, AI is human mediocracy.

bump
today threda seems interested again :3


>>11295
> Do have a post in mind
still not working on it.

What's the best software for speech synthesis?

>>16551
Depends on your requirements. Services like elevenlabs' produce good quality synthesis but you might need to pay up. If you want to do TTS locally, try WhisperSpeech or Coqui.