Comment by ACCount37
9 hours ago
First, fix your formatting. It's a fucking mess.
Second, what is the difference? Is it that one thing has an immortal soul, and thus Actual Intelligence and Actual Reasoning and Actual Learning, and the other has no soul, and a Pale Imitation of Intelligence, At Best?
Because I've seen versions of this "it's not actually thinking" for actual fucking years, and the difference between "actually thinking" and "not actually thinking" always seems to boil down to "I don't want LLMs to be actually thinking, so I will bend the definitions and twist the qualifiers and move the goalposts until they aren't". No one ever made an ActualThinkingBenchmark on which humans score 100% and LLMs score 0%.
Nothing but human insecurity, in my eyes. There was never a principled difference. Just a way to operationalize some "I'm unique and special and better than a matrix math machine" vibes.
Agreed, formatting was kind of f, but there is no need to be rude.
I wasn't saying there was any difference. All I'm saying is that the claimings the AI research field does are based on false assumptions. And from false assumptions, you cannot reach a proper conclusion.
Whether an AI system can reason and think like if it where a human being, or not, I don't care. I'm fine with either: it is just technological advance. But making claims based on false assumptions, and then being fooled by how 'wonderful' or 'spectacular' the results are, is, at least, naive.
> Nothing but human insecurity, in my eyes. There was never a principled difference. Just a way to operationalize some "I'm unique and special and better than a matrix math machine" vibes.
This is just something I don't get. People ignorant of technique are insecure and afraid. People that know how technology works, and thus investigate and know how it works fundamentally*, were never afraid or insecure.