3 ms·

Thinks?? When will folks learn to stop using the word thinks with the current generation of AI?

mcmcmc 2y ago
Come off it, people have been anthropomorphizing computer systems for decades. No one genuinely believes current AIs are thinking for themselves, other than the fanatics who have been convinced by marketing copy and twitter threads
- consp 2y ago
  I think you underestimate most of the population for following that marketing trend.
hollerith 2y ago
When my thermostat thinks it is too cold, it turns on the heat.
- esfandia 2y ago
  "To ascribe beliefs, free will, intentions, consciousness, abilities, or wants to a machine is legitimate when such an ascription expresses the same information about the machine that it expresses about a person. It is useful when the ascription helps us understand the structure of the machine, its past or future behaviour, or how to repair or improve it. It is perhaps never logically required even for humans, but expressing reasonably briefly what is actually known about the state of the machine in a particular situation may require mental qualities or qualities isomorphic to them. Theories of belief, knowledge and wanting can be constructed for machines in a simpler setting than for humans, and later applied to humans. Ascription of mental qualities is most straightforward for machines of known structure such as thermostats and computer operating systems, but is most useful when applied to entities whose structure is incompletely known.” (John McCarthy, 1979) https://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/ascribing.pdf https://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/ascribing.pdf
  - la64710 2y ago
    From perplexity.ai: Ascribing mental qualities to machines poses several challenges. Ethically, it blurs the line between human and machine, raising questions about rights and responsibilities1. Philosophically, it complicates the understanding of mind by attributing human-like qualities to non-human entities23. Practically, it can lead to misunderstandings about the capabilities and limitations of machines, as they do not truly possess beliefs or intentions like humans do56. Additionally, this practice can result in a misuse of language, potentially misleading people about the nature of artificial intelligence And lastly from http://www.cse.msu.edu/~cse841/papers/McCarthy.pdf http://www.cse.msu.edu/~cse841/papers/McCarthy.pdf We must be careful to not ascribe mental qualities to machines that do not have that.
gosub100 2y ago
What's thinking, if not finding the minima/maxima of a multidimensional space?
- probably_wrong 2y ago
  The molecules of a rock keep it together because breaking up would require more energy than staying as it currently is [1]. In other words, a rock is the result of finding a minimal (energy in this case) in a multidimensional space. If finding a minima is thinking then rocks are intelligent. Thinking may involve finding minimal/maxima, but it's not a 1-to-1 relation. I'd argue that thinking requires a will component: a sunflower is not a thinking entity because it doesn't have the choice not to follow the sun. [1] https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/444307/does-a-rock-use-up-energy-to-maintain-its-shape https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/444307/does-a-ro...
  - gosub100 2y ago
    This is a good point. However maybe the trouble comes from the word "find"? If a natural force such as gravity or thermodynamics results in a state of energy conservation, maybe that isn't the result of "finding"? I know it's a semantics issue but it seems to solve the conundrum. If you spend energy to discover information, vs letting nature take you there, maybe that's the delineation?
Dylan16807 2y ago
When someone says a search system "thinks" a claim, it means that the system is presenting it as true. This usage goes far back. You can even say the dictionary thinks the definition of a word is something. Why is this a problem to you?
- la64710 2y ago
  It is a problem to me because I am a human.

Come off it, people have been anthropomorphizing computer systems for decades. No one genuinely believes current AIs are thinking for themselves, other than the fanatics who have been convinced by marketing copy and twitter threads

consp 2y ago
I think you underestimate most of the population for following that marketing trend.

hollerith 2y ago

When my thermostat thinks it is too cold, it turns on the heat.

esfandia 2y ago
"To ascribe beliefs, free will, intentions, consciousness, abilities, or wants to a machine is legitimate when such an ascription expresses the same information about the machine that it expresses about a person. It is useful when the ascription helps us understand the structure of the machine, its past or future behaviour, or how to repair or improve it. It is perhaps never logically required even for humans, but expressing reasonably briefly what is actually known about the state of the machine in a particular situation may require mental qualities or qualities isomorphic to them. Theories of belief, knowledge and wanting can be constructed for machines in a simpler setting than for humans, and later applied to humans. Ascription of mental qualities is most straightforward for machines of known structure such as thermostats and computer operating systems, but is most useful when applied to entities whose structure is incompletely known.” (John McCarthy, 1979) https://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/ascribing.pdf https://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/ascribing.pdf
- la64710 2y ago
  From perplexity.ai: Ascribing mental qualities to machines poses several challenges. Ethically, it blurs the line between human and machine, raising questions about rights and responsibilities1. Philosophically, it complicates the understanding of mind by attributing human-like qualities to non-human entities23. Practically, it can lead to misunderstandings about the capabilities and limitations of machines, as they do not truly possess beliefs or intentions like humans do56. Additionally, this practice can result in a misuse of language, potentially misleading people about the nature of artificial intelligence And lastly from http://www.cse.msu.edu/~cse841/papers/McCarthy.pdf http://www.cse.msu.edu/~cse841/papers/McCarthy.pdf We must be careful to not ascribe mental qualities to machines that do not have that.

gosub100 2y ago

What's thinking, if not finding the minima/maxima of a multidimensional space?

probably_wrong 2y ago
The molecules of a rock keep it together because breaking up would require more energy than staying as it currently is [1]. In other words, a rock is the result of finding a minimal (energy in this case) in a multidimensional space. If finding a minima is thinking then rocks are intelligent. Thinking may involve finding minimal/maxima, but it's not a 1-to-1 relation. I'd argue that thinking requires a will component: a sunflower is not a thinking entity because it doesn't have the choice not to follow the sun. [1] https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/444307/does-a-rock-use-up-energy-to-maintain-its-shape https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/444307/does-a-ro...
- gosub100 2y ago
  This is a good point. However maybe the trouble comes from the word "find"? If a natural force such as gravity or thermodynamics results in a state of energy conservation, maybe that isn't the result of "finding"? I know it's a semantics issue but it seems to solve the conundrum. If you spend energy to discover information, vs letting nature take you there, maybe that's the delineation?

Dylan16807 2y ago

When someone says a search system "thinks" a claim, it means that the system is presenting it as true. This usage goes far back. You can even say the dictionary thinks the definition of a word is something. Why is this a problem to you?

la64710 2y ago
It is a problem to me because I am a human.