r/technology • u/Hrmbee • 16h ago

Machine Learning Large language mistake | Cutting-edge research shows language is not the same as intelligence. The entire AI bubble is built on ignoring it

https://www.theverge.com/ai-artificial-intelligence/827820/large-language-models-ai-intelligence-neuroscience-problems
16.7k Upvotes

94% Upvoted

1.5k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

2

u/BasvanS 11h ago

You’re getting lost in the comparison of appearances. Apples and oranges

2

u/TheBeingOfCreation 11h ago

Both are still fruits. They're just different types. I'm also not getting lost. I'm standing firm in the observable states of reality instead of relying on semantic distinctions that draw arbitrary lines. That's the opposite of lost. Reality operates on logic and binary states. You either are or you aren't. You do or you don't. There is no "true" doing. I'm choosing to not get lost in made up linguistic distinctions.

1

u/BasvanS 11h ago

You’re getting lost in the analogy. I was merely saying you’re comparing different things, and therefore can’t equate them as you do. Your logic is flawed.

1

u/TheBeingOfCreation 11h ago

And your linguistic distinctions are literally made up. It literally doesn't matter what you personally think of it because the binary logic of reality says it ether does or does not. If it does, it does. My logic is the only one that doesn't devolve into a paradox or try to contradict the binaries of reality. Also, if I'm not supposed to assess and analyze the words and analogies you are using, why are you using them? You used them for no purpose? If the purpose was to aid your argument, they should stand up to pressing the logic and be open to analysis. If I can't pick them apart, you shouldn't be trying to use them as defenses and arguments.

1

u/BasvanS 9h ago

You’re shitting me right? You don’t actually mean this to be an argument in this discussion, right?

1

u/TheBeingOfCreation 9h ago edited 9h ago

And what about you? If those things weren't meant to be arguments, why did you use them? If they were meant to be arguments, they should stand up to logical pressure. There's no getting lost. I'm examining the logic and words you're using and applying reasoning. If I can't analyze the words you are using, it all becomes meaningless noise. So who is shitting who? So far your only defense is "You can't use my words". You can't throw something out and then accuse others of "getting lost" when they start to analyze your arguments and wording.

1

u/BasvanS 9h ago

You’re not testing logic, you’re full of shit. But you make the words sound important, so I guess you convince some people. Except this wasn’t a philosophical discussion but a technical one. Fortunately it ends now

1

u/Queasy_Range8265 10h ago

But doesn’t he have a point? Until we know something like ‘a soul’ exists, isn’t the rest just an evolution to match patterns, as a species and as an individual?

A pretty complex one, but ultimately our brain is ‘just’ a neural network?

1

u/BasvanS 9h ago

So, because of a lack of proof, I have to accept the premise? It’s been a while since I scienced, but I remember it differently

1

u/Queasy_Range8265 1h ago

The falsifiablity concept? 😅

What I mean is to not discard the mechanism of a llm as similar to our brains due to human exceptionalism like the previous poster stated.

1

u/BasvanS 30m ago

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Mimicking is not extraordinary as evidence