4 ms·

The problem is we’re now arguing with religious zealots. I am not being sarcastic.

gibbitz 1y ago
I feel this way about Typescript too. There are a lot of people in engineering these days who don't think critically or exercise full observation when using popular technologies. I don't feel like it was like this 15 years ago, but it probably was...
exe34 1y ago
that's correct. those who believe only carbon can achieve intelligence.
- melagonster 1y ago
  Yes, Carbon do not give them human rights.
- shkkmo 1y ago
  If you stereotype the people who disagree with you, you'll have a very hard time understanding their actual arguments.
  - exe34 1y ago
    I stopped finding those arguments entertaining after a while. It always ends up "there's something that will always be missing, I just know it, but I won't tell you what. I'm just willing to go round and round in circles."
    - gibbitz 1y ago
      Don't forget the part where they don't listen to or engage with counter arguments. That's a popular one.
    - shkkmo 1y ago
      People who are certain that computers can't replicate human level intelligence aren't being intellectually rigourous. The same applies to people who are certain computers can replicate human level intelligence. We can make arguments for informed guesses but there are simply still too many unknowns to be certain either way. People who claim to be certain are just being presumptuous.
      - exe34 1y ago
        > The same applies to people who are certain computers can replicate human level intelligence. that's the thing, I'm not certain that "computers" can replicate human level intelligence. for one that statement would have to include a rigorous definition of what a computer is and what is excluded. no, I just don't buy the idea that human level intelligence is only achievable in human born meatbags. at this point the only evidence has been "look, birds flap their wings and man doesn't have wings, therefore man will never fly".
        gibbitz 1y ago
        If we could design a human would we design them with menstrual cycles? Why would we even target human intelligence. Feels like setting the bar low and not being very creative... Seriously, the human brain is susceptible to self stroking patterns that result in disordered thinking. We spend inordinate amounts of energy daydreaming, and processing visual and auditory stimulus. We require sleep and don't fully understand why. So why would we target human intelligence? Propaganda. Anyone worried about losing their livelihood to automation is going to take notice. AI has the place in the zeitgeist today that Robots occupied in the 1980s and for the same reason. The wealthy and powerful can see the power it has socially right now and they are doing whatever they can to leverage it. It's why they don't call it LLMs but AI because AI is scarier. It's why all the tech bro CEOs signed the "pause" letter. If this was about man flying we would be making an airplane instead of talking about how the next breakthrough will make us all into angels. LLMs are clever inventions they're just not independently clever.
- windward 1y ago
  This stops being an interesting philosophical problem when you recognise the vast complexity of animal brains that LLMs fail to replicate or substitute.
oinfoalgo 1y ago
I actually don't know if you are referring to anti-LLM/"ai slop" software engineers or irrationally bullish LLM "the singularity is near" enthusiast. Religious fervor in one's own opinion on the state of the world seems to be the zeitgeist.

I feel this way about Typescript too. There are a lot of people in engineering these days who don't think critically or exercise full observation when using popular technologies. I don't feel like it was like this 15 years ago, but it probably was...

exe34 1y ago

that's correct. those who believe only carbon can achieve intelligence.

melagonster 1y ago
Yes, Carbon do not give them human rights.
shkkmo 1y ago
If you stereotype the people who disagree with you, you'll have a very hard time understanding their actual arguments.
- exe34 1y ago
  I stopped finding those arguments entertaining after a while. It always ends up "there's something that will always be missing, I just know it, but I won't tell you what. I'm just willing to go round and round in circles."
  - gibbitz 1y ago
    Don't forget the part where they don't listen to or engage with counter arguments. That's a popular one.
  - shkkmo 1y ago
    People who are certain that computers can't replicate human level intelligence aren't being intellectually rigourous. The same applies to people who are certain computers can replicate human level intelligence. We can make arguments for informed guesses but there are simply still too many unknowns to be certain either way. People who claim to be certain are just being presumptuous.
    - exe34 1y ago
      > The same applies to people who are certain computers can replicate human level intelligence. that's the thing, I'm not certain that "computers" can replicate human level intelligence. for one that statement would have to include a rigorous definition of what a computer is and what is excluded. no, I just don't buy the idea that human level intelligence is only achievable in human born meatbags. at this point the only evidence has been "look, birds flap their wings and man doesn't have wings, therefore man will never fly".
      - gibbitz 1y ago
        If we could design a human would we design them with menstrual cycles? Why would we even target human intelligence. Feels like setting the bar low and not being very creative... Seriously, the human brain is susceptible to self stroking patterns that result in disordered thinking. We spend inordinate amounts of energy daydreaming, and processing visual and auditory stimulus. We require sleep and don't fully understand why. So why would we target human intelligence? Propaganda. Anyone worried about losing their livelihood to automation is going to take notice. AI has the place in the zeitgeist today that Robots occupied in the 1980s and for the same reason. The wealthy and powerful can see the power it has socially right now and they are doing whatever they can to leverage it. It's why they don't call it LLMs but AI because AI is scarier. It's why all the tech bro CEOs signed the "pause" letter. If this was about man flying we would be making an airplane instead of talking about how the next breakthrough will make us all into angels. LLMs are clever inventions they're just not independently clever.
windward 1y ago
This stops being an interesting philosophical problem when you recognise the vast complexity of animal brains that LLMs fail to replicate or substitute.

oinfoalgo 1y ago

I actually don't know if you are referring to anti-LLM/"ai slop" software engineers or irrationally bullish LLM "the singularity is near" enthusiast. Religious fervor in one's own opinion on the state of the world seems to be the zeitgeist.