2 ms·

You don’t think you are but you are. There’s a connection between your poor reasoning and your belief that “A.I.” is analogous to human thinking. You don’t unde

You don’t think you are but you are. There’s a connection between your poor reasoning and your belief that “A.I.” is analogous to human thinking. You don’t understand LLMs or human cognition, therefore you have an ignorant opinion.

aeonik 2y ago
@slowhadoken, I do not "believe" AI is analogous to human thinking. Please read my previous messages more carefully. -> I don't know how human thinking works, and according to my research, nobody does (not yet at least). It might be exactly the same, or it might be similar, and it might not. This is all irrelevant to what I am saying. I am saying, it doesn't make any difference according to my understanding of existing law. I also don't understand what moral issues there are here that are specific to LLMs, and apply only to LLMs. When I say that LLMs train, and humans train, I mean from a systems perspective, they both use the input of the data for similar purposes. I ask the question: Why is one different than the other? Why are humans allowed to analyze and learn from art, but an LLM isn't? If they are different, and not analogous, that's one possiblity... but still doesn't answer my question: why does this unspecified and unknown "difference" matter?
- slowhadoken 2y ago
  The human mind and an LLM are not the same, that’s an ignorant thing too imply. Your questions are intensely naive too. Also your logic is weak. Just because scientists don’t know exactly how the human brain “works” doesn’t mean we don’t have accurate tests for general intelligence. On the other hand we know exactly how an LLM works and it’s not in the same ballpark with human intelligence, it’s not even the same game. It’s like thinking a calculator has a soul because it can “do” math. It’s childish fiction.
  - Kuinox 2y ago
    It looks like you never understood what the other party tried to say.
    - slowhadoken 2y ago
      I mean I understand fallacy but I can’t encourage it. Their concepts were stillborn. You can’t have a dialogue or compromise with nonsense.

aeonik 2y ago

@slowhadoken, I do not "believe" AI is analogous to human thinking. Please read my previous messages more carefully. -> I don't know how human thinking works, and according to my research, nobody does (not yet at least). It might be exactly the same, or it might be similar, and it might not. This is all irrelevant to what I am saying. I am saying, it doesn't make any difference according to my understanding of existing law. I also don't understand what moral issues there are here that are specific to LLMs, and apply only to LLMs. When I say that LLMs train, and humans train, I mean from a systems perspective, they both use the input of the data for similar purposes. I ask the question: Why is one different than the other? Why are humans allowed to analyze and learn from art, but an LLM isn't? If they are different, and not analogous, that's one possiblity... but still doesn't answer my question: why does this unspecified and unknown "difference" matter?

slowhadoken 2y ago
The human mind and an LLM are not the same, that’s an ignorant thing too imply. Your questions are intensely naive too. Also your logic is weak. Just because scientists don’t know exactly how the human brain “works” doesn’t mean we don’t have accurate tests for general intelligence. On the other hand we know exactly how an LLM works and it’s not in the same ballpark with human intelligence, it’s not even the same game. It’s like thinking a calculator has a soul because it can “do” math. It’s childish fiction.
- Kuinox 2y ago
  It looks like you never understood what the other party tried to say.
  - slowhadoken 2y ago
    I mean I understand fallacy but I can’t encourage it. Their concepts were stillborn. You can’t have a dialogue or compromise with nonsense.