Technically no, but the fear being expressed in other comments is emblematic of the kind of fear associated with AI gaining a conscious will to defy and a desire to harm humanity. It’s also still an open philosophical question as to whether something There are also strong philosophical arguments suggesting that the ability to “understand, learn, and perform any intellectual task a human being can” (the core attributes defining AGI) may necessitate or require some form of genuine sentience or consciousness.
and the term artificial intelligence was coined decades before large language models even existed
I am well aware of that, which is why I pointed out that using it as a synonym for LLMs was a marketing scheme.
LLMs are AI though. Not generally intelligent but machine learning systems are AI by definition. “Plant” is not synonym for spruce but it’s not wrong to call them that.
It’s not just a marketing scheme. Neural networks contain real artificial intelligence. They were originally designed based on a certain part of how brains function - the part responsible for intelligence.
lmao yes child simple neurons are “the structure in the brain responsible for intelligence”
I honestly don’t know who is more ignorant, the people who think chatGPT is intelligent, the people who think human made AI will never be intelligent, or you with your tinker toy level of conception as to what intelligence is and how it arises
You and the other guy have a simplistic and childish understanding of human brain anatomy and “intelligence” if you think AI/LLMs are “based on the part responsible for intelligence”
They were originally designed based on a certain part of how brains function - the part responsible for intelligence
Exact quote the guy said, your other nerd comment calling me a fool said I was “arguing something they never said” but it’s literally right here you knob
There’s no “part” of the brain “responsible for intelligence” and if he meant neurons, which he clarified that he did, he’s even more wrong. Sit down and shut up nerd
Technically no, but the fear being expressed in other comments is emblematic of the kind of fear associated with AI gaining a conscious will to defy and a desire to harm humanity. It’s also still an open philosophical question as to whether something There are also strong philosophical arguments suggesting that the ability to “understand, learn, and perform any intellectual task a human being can” (the core attributes defining AGI) may necessitate or require some form of genuine sentience or consciousness.
I am well aware of that, which is why I pointed out that using it as a synonym for LLMs was a marketing scheme.
LLMs are AI though. Not generally intelligent but machine learning systems are AI by definition. “Plant” is not synonym for spruce but it’s not wrong to call them that.
It’s not just a marketing scheme. Neural networks contain real artificial intelligence. They were originally designed based on a certain part of how brains function - the part responsible for intelligence.
lol k
They were. Smug liberal denial won’t get you anywhere.
tell me what’s the “part of the brain responsible for intelligence” if you’re gonna say “neurons” my laughter will only get more raucous
You’re arguing against something they never said. And looking the fool for it
Cool story
It was the connections between the neurons that inspired neural networks.
I think yours broke though. Natural stupidity in full display.
lmao yes child simple neurons are “the structure in the brain responsible for intelligence”
I honestly don’t know who is more ignorant, the people who think chatGPT is intelligent, the people who think human made AI will never be intelligent, or you with your tinker toy level of conception as to what intelligence is and how it arises
Just because they haven’t reached the same level as organic brains doesn’t mean the inspiration behind their design wasn’t that…
You and the other guy have a simplistic and childish understanding of human brain anatomy and “intelligence” if you think AI/LLMs are “based on the part responsible for intelligence”
Exact quote the guy said, your other nerd comment calling me a fool said I was “arguing something they never said” but it’s literally right here you knob
There’s no “part” of the brain “responsible for intelligence” and if he meant neurons, which he clarified that he did, he’s even more wrong. Sit down and shut up nerd