zlacker

>>grader+(OP)
The "I" in AI is just complete bullshit and I can't understand why so many people are in a awe of a bit of software that chains words to another based on some statistical model.

The sad truth is that ChatGPT is about as good an AI as ELIZA was in 1966, it's just better (granted: much better) at hiding its total lack of actual human understanding. It's nothing more than an expensive parlor trick, IMHO.

Github CoPilot? Great, now I have to perform the most mentally taxing part of developing software, namely understanding other people's code (or my own from 6 months ago...) while writing new code. I'm beyond thrilled ...

So, no, I don't have an AI fatigue, because we absolutely have no AI anywhere. But I have a massive bullshit and hype fatigue that is getting worse all the time.

>>dual_d+ha
“AI” isn’t bull shit, it’s correctly labeled. It’s intelligence which is artificial: i.e. fake, ersatz, specious, not genuine… It’s our fault for not just reading the label. (I absolutely agree with your post and your viewpoint, just to be clear!)

>>sfpott+Ta
Artifical means "not human" in this context for me, but I understand "Intelligence" as the abiltiy to actual reason about something based on things you learned and/or experienced, and these "AI" tools don't do this at all.

But defining "intelligence" is a philosopical question that doesn't necessarily have one answer for everything and everyone.

>>dual_d+ae
Personally, I try to take a more inductive approach. We don’t know what intelligence is, but we assume it’s something we exhibit. We also clearly recognize other animals as possessing the same trait to varying degrees. Since we don’t know what it is, and since (I would argue) we can only convincingly claim that exists in other biological organisms without meeting a high burden of proof, to claim that it exists in an inorganic substrate requires a VERY large burden of proof to be met, similar to what would be met if you were claiming that magic existed. In my view, calling computers “intelligent” is in the same league as claiming that crystals are magic. Of course, this depends on my own philosophical interpretation of what intelligence is, as you say.

>>sfpott+ik
Intelligence is a capability not a mechanism, and therefore if you're able/willing to define what that capability is, there should be no problem measuring/gauging the intelligence of any system, biological or not. You don't need to look inside the black box - you only need to test if the black box has this capability.

Intelligence may be a fuzzily defined word in everyday usage, but I don't think it's the mystery you present it to be. Joe public may argue against any and all definitions of the word that they personally disagree with (maybe just dislike), but it's nonetheless quite easy to come up with a straightforward and reductive definition if you actually want to!

>>HarHar+qq
You and I are clearly referring to two different things when we use the word “intelligence”. It is also not nearly so easy to come up with a simple/mechanical/verifiable definition for the thing that you’re referring to. Unless you have a good definition—in which case, you might want to put your money where your mouth is and get busy revolutionizing multiple fields of human inquiry!

It’s also plain that many people are very interested in looking inside the black box and think the contents of the black box are relevant and important. This fact doesn’t change just by your saying so.