4 ms·

> Be honest, how many people do you think "introspect and continually learn" on a daily basis? That's wild if you think that isn't quite literally one of the d

> Be honest, how many people do you think "introspect and continually learn" on a daily basis? That's wild if you think that isn't quite literally one of the defining features of human consciousness (and many would say other animals as well). If you think people thinking differently than you means they don't still indeed...think...then I don't know what tell you.

welferkj 2y ago
Unfortunately for the intelligence denial crowd, introspection and learning capability is something we can measure, as opposed to the vibes-based discourse you prefer to engage in. If that's what you've picked for your threshold of "intelligence", you've reduced the majority of the bell curve's left side to soulless automatons. Again, your definition, not mine.
- dartos 2y ago
  My definition (again, as a layman on the subject of intelligence philosophy), but your incorrect analysis. I guess I just think more highly of my fellow humans.
  - exe34 2y ago
    > I guess I just think more highly of my fellow humans. As an article of faith, yes. But I don't see what this adds to the discussion.
    - dartos 2y ago
      > If that's what you've picked for your threshold of "intelligence", you've reduced the majority of the bell curve's left side to soulless automatons I disagree with this statement, which is the crux of their argument against my definition of intelligence. I don’t think any credible survey of the intelligence or lack of a large enough population exists (due to there not being a common binary measure of intelligence), so it’s an issue you kind of need to take on faith.
  - ImHereToVote 2y ago
    >so it’s an issue you kind of need to take on faith. Thanks for playing.
    - dartos 2y ago
      It cuts both ways… you need to believe that most humans aren’t actually intelligent as we don’t have any data that suggests that most humans aren’t.
      - exe34 2y ago
        you have no data that suggests I can't fly either.
        dartos 2y ago
        … but… we do have data that proves that humans can’t just fly? I think… I’m done talking with you now.
        exe34 2y ago
        you just like your assumptions to go unchallenged. goodbye!
dartos 2y ago
It’s crazy to me that people would rather believe that we can create intelligence by feeding the text of the internet into a statistics machine, than believe that the people making that text are intelligent.
- welferkj 2y ago
  It's crazy to me people would rather deny the intelligence of a large segment of the human population than admit to the increasing overlap between it and AI. That's what you're doing when you keep moving the goalposts of "real intelligence" further and further right on the bell curve. You're denying the intelligence and consciousness of billions of people (and counting) just so you don't have to admit there's nothing magical about intelligence. Sometime in the next 10 years, you'll have to start thinking of yourself as a soulless automaton to keep up the delusion. Good luck with that.
  - dartos 2y ago
    > It's crazy to me people would rather deny the intelligence of a large segment of the human population than admit to the increasing overlap between it and AI. You’re the one here denying. I think the vast majority (if not all) of humans are intelligent under my definition. You do not. I don’t think LLMs or other statistical models are.
    - welferkj 2y ago
      Under the latest definition you made up on the spot, yes. And definitely not all. So what's your plan when the fraction keeps shrinking? When you're no longer in it? This is simple interpolation. It is plainly obvious that at some point soon, you will be faced with the fact that there's nothing magical about intelligence. When that happens, will you concede that, or start thinking of yourself as a soulless automaton? If you can't project that far forward, I question whether you meet any meaningful definition of "intelligent" right now.
      - dartos 2y ago

welferkj 2y ago

Unfortunately for the intelligence denial crowd, introspection and learning capability is something we can measure, as opposed to the vibes-based discourse you prefer to engage in. If that's what you've picked for your threshold of "intelligence", you've reduced the majority of the bell curve's left side to soulless automatons. Again, your definition, not mine.

dartos 2y ago
My definition (again, as a layman on the subject of intelligence philosophy), but your incorrect analysis. I guess I just think more highly of my fellow humans.
- exe34 2y ago
  > I guess I just think more highly of my fellow humans. As an article of faith, yes. But I don't see what this adds to the discussion.
  - dartos 2y ago
    > If that's what you've picked for your threshold of "intelligence", you've reduced the majority of the bell curve's left side to soulless automatons I disagree with this statement, which is the crux of their argument against my definition of intelligence. I don’t think any credible survey of the intelligence or lack of a large enough population exists (due to there not being a common binary measure of intelligence), so it’s an issue you kind of need to take on faith.
- ImHereToVote 2y ago
  >so it’s an issue you kind of need to take on faith. Thanks for playing.
  - dartos 2y ago
    It cuts both ways… you need to believe that most humans aren’t actually intelligent as we don’t have any data that suggests that most humans aren’t.
    - exe34 2y ago
      you have no data that suggests I can't fly either.
      - dartos 2y ago
        … but… we do have data that proves that humans can’t just fly? I think… I’m done talking with you now.
        exe34 2y ago
        you just like your assumptions to go unchallenged. goodbye!

dartos 2y ago

It’s crazy to me that people would rather believe that we can create intelligence by feeding the text of the internet into a statistics machine, than believe that the people making that text are intelligent.

welferkj 2y ago
It's crazy to me people would rather deny the intelligence of a large segment of the human population than admit to the increasing overlap between it and AI. That's what you're doing when you keep moving the goalposts of "real intelligence" further and further right on the bell curve. You're denying the intelligence and consciousness of billions of people (and counting) just so you don't have to admit there's nothing magical about intelligence. Sometime in the next 10 years, you'll have to start thinking of yourself as a soulless automaton to keep up the delusion. Good luck with that.
- dartos 2y ago
  > It's crazy to me people would rather deny the intelligence of a large segment of the human population than admit to the increasing overlap between it and AI. You’re the one here denying. I think the vast majority (if not all) of humans are intelligent under my definition. You do not. I don’t think LLMs or other statistical models are.
  - welferkj 2y ago
    Under the latest definition you made up on the spot, yes. And definitely not all. So what's your plan when the fraction keeps shrinking? When you're no longer in it? This is simple interpolation. It is plainly obvious that at some point soon, you will be faced with the fact that there's nothing magical about intelligence. When that happens, will you concede that, or start thinking of yourself as a soulless automaton? If you can't project that far forward, I question whether you meet any meaningful definition of "intelligent" right now.
    - dartos 2y ago