2 ms·

I'd love for the AI hypesters to give their definition. They don't because any definition of "thinking" that would apply to their constructions would be laughed

• arghwhat 1y ago
  I'd love to hear your definition of human thinking. No one else knows how that works, so it would most certainly be worth sharing, especially what the discriminator for whether something "thinks" would be. While avoiding being "laughed out of the room", of course.
• esafak 1y ago
  The ability to extrapolate from facts. I don't think self awareness, emotions, or senses are required. You should give your definition too, so we can debate where computers fall short. See also: Levels of AGI for Operationalizing Progress on the Path to AGI (https://arxiv.org/abs/2311.02462 https://arxiv.org/abs/2311.02462)
• bigyabai 1y ago
  I'll steelman the other side, even as someone that detests AI and marketing hype. There isn't any harm in calling AI-generated text "thought" in the same way we aren't debasing humans by saying that crows or worms think too. It doesn't confer sophistication, sentience or even intelligence onto the thing that is thinking. It just means that some sort of process is taking an input and creating a distinct output as a product of consideration. There's no rule anywhere that says thought has to be intangible, or that it can't be represented as an algebraic formula. We can peer very easily into your train of thought here. You won't produce evidence to logically justify your stance, you can't take a position of authority on the subject, and basically rely purely on pathos to sell a fear of LLMs. Aristotle would call your rhetoric AI-generated if he lived to see the modern age.