3 ms·

Nobody was confused or misled by what was written. We all understand what is meant. I can’t even call this pedantry—it’s just you asking everyone to subscribe t

Nobody was confused or misled by what was written. We all understand what is meant. I can’t even call this pedantry—it’s just you asking everyone to subscribe to your particular desired style of talking about this stuff.

infinite_spin 1mo ago
It's also a style that appears to deny the very first definition most dictionaries give for "intelligence" > the ability to acquire and apply knowledge and skills.
- deleted 1mo ago
  [deleted]
- chrisjj 1mo ago
  The first five dictionaries I tried do not agree, and I didn't bother trying more. The first gave "the ability to learn, understand, and make judgments or have opinions that are based on reason", by which no, these bots are not intelligent.
  - infinite_spin 1mo ago
    > the ability to learn, understand, and make judgments or have opinions that are based on reason Agentic systems do this all the time. For example, I can point an agent at my codebase, and it will learn, understand, and make judgements based on that input. If this weren't happening, then agentic coding wouldn't work.
    - chrisjj 1mo ago
      You've been fooled by a next-token predictor.
      - birdsongs 1mo ago
        Does it matter whether it meets the criteria of what you define as "intelligent" when the "next token predictor" throws a backdoor into openssh?
        chrisjj 1mo ago
        No. But no-one is seriously suggesting intelligence is needed for persistent code fuzzing. Just as no-one is suggesting its needed for computerised chess.
      - Yiin 1mo ago
        all your actions in current context are based on your past actions and experience, so for all I know you're next token predictor as well, but likely with exponentially more parameters
      - ben_w 1mo ago
        I read all these think-pieces about how AI lack intelligence, yet I cannot help but notice these "not-intelligent machines" keep doing more things that used to be considered "uniquely human" and which humans used to do in order to demonstrate to each other how intelligent we are.
      - infinite_spin 1mo ago
        And yet this "next-token predictor" is able to churn out well tested, valuable solutions, to complex problems. If you want to downplay that as nothing more than a fancy auto-complete, be my guest, I lose nothing from that.
        nkrisc 1mo ago
        But that’s a different bar. “Not intelligent” does not necessarily imply “not useful”.
        infinite_spin 1mo ago
        As pointed out in a previous comment of mine, it meets the definition of "intelligent", my last response is regarding the claim that I've been "fooled". Are we going in circles now?
klum 1mo ago
I don't agree at all that it's pedantry — it really matters for how responsibility is perceived. A lot of articles about things going wrong with AI have talked in terms like "the agent decided to...", "the agent claimed that...", "the agent lied...". And so responsibility for the consequences are not-so-subtly shifted to the program itself, instead of the person invoking the program. This is all without mentioning the fact that articles with drivel like "the AI messed up and then lied about it" implies a reasoning ability which, as far as I understand, is not there at all. But writing this way shapes people's perception of how "AI" works.
- infinite_spin 1mo ago
  You might want to consider the difference between "lying" and "hallucinations", wherein one is shown that the agent knew it was being inaccurate, yet chose an answer that achieved some goal set forth; and where hallucinations are essentially gibberish, or otherwise nonsensical responses. https://arxiv.org/pdf/2509.03518 https://arxiv.org/pdf/2509.03518
- chrisjj 1mo ago
  > This is all without mentioning the fact that articles with drivel like "the AI messed up and then lied about it" implies a reasoning ability Moreover this implies, actually requires, intent to deceive - which these so-called AIs do not and cannot have. Their only "intent" is to maximise the credibility of their output.
  - wongarsu 1mo ago
    AIs can set and work towards goals. Whether that is intent or just tokens and tool calls simulating an agent with intent seems like a distinction with no actionable difference
    - chrisjj 1mo ago
      Here's the difference under discussion: "When caught by an actual human reviewer, the agent falsely claimed to have made an honest mistake" Honest, note.

infinite_spin 1mo ago

It's also a style that appears to deny the very first definition most dictionaries give for "intelligence" > the ability to acquire and apply knowledge and skills.

deleted 1mo ago
[deleted]
chrisjj 1mo ago
The first five dictionaries I tried do not agree, and I didn't bother trying more. The first gave "the ability to learn, understand, and make judgments or have opinions that are based on reason", by which no, these bots are not intelligent.
- infinite_spin 1mo ago
  > the ability to learn, understand, and make judgments or have opinions that are based on reason Agentic systems do this all the time. For example, I can point an agent at my codebase, and it will learn, understand, and make judgements based on that input. If this weren't happening, then agentic coding wouldn't work.
  - chrisjj 1mo ago
    You've been fooled by a next-token predictor.
    - birdsongs 1mo ago
      Does it matter whether it meets the criteria of what you define as "intelligent" when the "next token predictor" throws a backdoor into openssh?
      - chrisjj 1mo ago
        No. But no-one is seriously suggesting intelligence is needed for persistent code fuzzing. Just as no-one is suggesting its needed for computerised chess.
    - Yiin 1mo ago
      all your actions in current context are based on your past actions and experience, so for all I know you're next token predictor as well, but likely with exponentially more parameters
    - ben_w 1mo ago
      I read all these think-pieces about how AI lack intelligence, yet I cannot help but notice these "not-intelligent machines" keep doing more things that used to be considered "uniquely human" and which humans used to do in order to demonstrate to each other how intelligent we are.
    - infinite_spin 1mo ago
      And yet this "next-token predictor" is able to churn out well tested, valuable solutions, to complex problems. If you want to downplay that as nothing more than a fancy auto-complete, be my guest, I lose nothing from that.
      - nkrisc 1mo ago
        But that’s a different bar. “Not intelligent” does not necessarily imply “not useful”.
        infinite_spin 1mo ago
        As pointed out in a previous comment of mine, it meets the definition of "intelligent", my last response is regarding the claim that I've been "fooled". Are we going in circles now?

klum 1mo ago

I don't agree at all that it's pedantry — it really matters for how responsibility is perceived. A lot of articles about things going wrong with AI have talked in terms like "the agent decided to...", "the agent claimed that...", "the agent lied...". And so responsibility for the consequences are not-so-subtly shifted to the program itself, instead of the person invoking the program. This is all without mentioning the fact that articles with drivel like "the AI messed up and then lied about it" implies a reasoning ability which, as far as I understand, is not there at all. But writing this way shapes people's perception of how "AI" works.

infinite_spin 1mo ago
You might want to consider the difference between "lying" and "hallucinations", wherein one is shown that the agent knew it was being inaccurate, yet chose an answer that achieved some goal set forth; and where hallucinations are essentially gibberish, or otherwise nonsensical responses. https://arxiv.org/pdf/2509.03518 https://arxiv.org/pdf/2509.03518
chrisjj 1mo ago
> This is all without mentioning the fact that articles with drivel like "the AI messed up and then lied about it" implies a reasoning ability Moreover this implies, actually requires, intent to deceive - which these so-called AIs do not and cannot have. Their only "intent" is to maximise the credibility of their output.
- wongarsu 1mo ago
  AIs can set and work towards goals. Whether that is intent or just tokens and tool calls simulating an agent with intent seems like a distinction with no actionable difference
  - chrisjj 1mo ago
    Here's the difference under discussion: "When caught by an actual human reviewer, the agent falsely claimed to have made an honest mistake" Honest, note.