[no_wizard]

I love how the goal post is being moved publicly as to what AI means.

AI is anything automated it seems, and now they’re being subcategorized into niches as to what they do, e.g. “Agentic AI”, “LLM backed AI systems” etc.

If it’s not real intelligence then it isn’t really AI, and I wish the world at large would call it out.

LLM, Machine Learning, Neural Networks etc are all great but none of them have true spontaneous intelligence or learning ability.

Please, someone point out how any of these systems have organic spontaneous learning ability for a subject it was not pre-data seeded on. This is a generally accepted measure of higher level sentience as far as I’m aware

[revscat]

> it’s not real intelligence

Hence the predicated “artificial”, and hence the downvotes you are currently receiving.

Your message is largely, if not entirely, a strawman.

[no_wizard]

None of these exhibit any accepted definitions of intelligence markers. The intelligence isn’t artificial, it doesn’t exist is my point. If you apply the commonly accepted definitions of what is considered display of intelligent behavior. One aspect of which is the ability to adapt to new circumstances that you haven’t experienced before.

There has been considerable success in programming computers to draw inferences, for example, but not actual reasoning. You can mimic some forms of reasoning but you can’t take one ML set - like recognizing photos with mountains, then expect it to correctly identify a similar geographical element - a hill. It can’t do that. It may correctly identify that it’s not a mountain but that isn’t the same thing as actually learning it’s similar to a mountain but not the same, which would be a rudimentary definition of a hill that an intelligent entity could conceivably use if it knew what a mountain was but not a hill.

Machine Learning was always a more honest place to have This discourse. I am indeed pushing back on the idea that we should be calling ChatGPT or anything like it intelligence.

It’s Machine Learning, clever algorithms, Large language Models, among other things, that are trained on ways to mimic certain aspects of intelligence, but it does not actually possess any real intelligence. Look at the LLM hallucination problem for example. It can’t be self corrected because it’s not an intelligent system.

Moving the goal post on what AI means (and pushing AGI as some new goalpost) is disingenuous, and relatively recent.

I’d care not if it wasn’t for the fact there is so much misinformation around capabilities and the future of AI, that it’s already negatively crept into policy making for example.

[xk_id]

I’m more annoyed by the sheer amount of effort and time we’re spending now as a society to rationalise the AI bullshit and argue against it. For example everything you said is valid, but you were provoked into painstakingly writing this elaborate rebuttal, by a bunch of parasitic VCs, who have zero intellectual integrity and are simply trying to advertise their investment.

[xvector]

I dunno about that. Peter Norvig would disagree with both of you. He argues we reached AGI some time ago. It's a good read - https://www.noemamag.com/artificial-general-intelligence-is-...