It was all fun and games two years ago when most AI videos were obvious (6 fingers, 7 fingers, etc.).
But things are getting out of hand. I am at a point I’m questioning if Lemmy, Reddit, Youtube comments etc. are even real. I wouldn’t even be suprised if I was playing Overwatch 5v5 with 9 AIs while three of them are programmed to act like kids, 4 being non toxic etc…
This whole place could just be an illusion.
I can’t prove it. Its really less fun now.
The upside is I go to the gym more frequently and just hang out with people I know are 100% real. Nothing worse than having a conversation with AI person. It was just an average 7/10 like I am an average 5/10 so I thought it could be a real thing but turned out I was chatting with AI. A 7/10 AI. The creator made the person less perfect looking to make it more realistic.
Nice. What is the point of internet when everything is fake but can’t even or only be identified as fake with deep research.
I’m 32 and I know many young people who also hate it. To be fair I only know people who hate on AI nowadays. This has to end.
To be fair to @[email protected] , bots in games aren’t really “AI,” nor were the millions of fake accounts from at least 2011 which were all run by real humans using Persona Management Software. ChatGPT and the like have only been around a few years, but Persona Management goes back almost 15 years while gaming bots go back 20 years or more. It really is a strech to call them “AI.”
Fully agree
I disagree in the strongest possible terms. Next you’ll be saying speech-to-text isn’t AI.
Ya got me, it’s not.
I assure you, it very much is. Two decades ago when I was a student specializing in AI, it was the next big “unsolved problem” alongside computer vision. Five years later, it was solved and the world moved on.
But it remains an application of artificial intelligence.
Some people think of AI as a human-like mind running on a computer. That’s science fiction. AI in real life takes in information and makes decisions in a much smaller arena. “Does this photo contain a face?” “Does this X-ray contain a tumor?” “Given this game board and list of previous move, what’s the winning strategy?” They’re intelligent about only one subject.
I started to write more, but this is long enough. Not every AI is an AGI. Not every AI is linguistic. Most of them are mundane and boring, in fact.
This is apples vs pears with 2 languages that make them sound similar.
Ai is a technical domain of computer science. All machine learning is AI here.
But Ai is just short for artificial intelligence and those are 2 normal words with their own meaning and can be used literally. Llms are artificial, they can so some clever things. But is it intelligent? There is lots of subjective room here.
Smart foto filters are fighting a very uphill battle to be considered intelligent.
This is different from AGI which is on par with human intelligence, in practice i don’t believe many humans will consider something intelligent until it surpasses themselves but thats besides the point.
According to most dictionary definitions for “intelligence” the bar is quite low for a system to be considered “intelligent”
I am often very specific about the meaning of some words myself, however in this case i doubt a textbook definition will do.
One can write entire books on what intelligence is and still only scratch the surface.
Words like “reason” and “understanding” are massive on their own.
Same with something like conscious. We do not understand it well enough for any definition to fit.
When people dismiss Ai as not intelligent they are not using a dictionary metric of checkboxes to see if it is or isn’t intelligent. They weigh it on their own subjective understanding of intelligence.
To give you a specific example.
I call them “ai” because i have the technical background to understand its field of Computer science but i don’t consider llms like claude or o3 at all intelligent.
I do consider them smart, clever and even knowledged but i personally put the bar of intelligent reasoning at a more conscious awareness of its surroundings close to emergent desire for self preservation. An example (but not necessarily) would be demonstrating a continual emotional experience.
I think that a good definition for consciousness is the subjective experience of it feeling like something to be. It’s the fact that there’s qualia to existence. I don’t see a reason for why we would need to solve the hard problem of consciousness in order to define a term we use to describe it. As far as I know we don’t understand gravity either but everyone still understands that term.
I don’t think real consciousness is required for my own standard of intelligence. I also consider consciousness without intelligence but agree they are often related. I mostly gave it as another example of something that we ourselves are not intelligent enough to have an absolute definition for.
Please dont get me started on gravity. Your poking an nest of autistic bees with that one. I have very strong feelings about it being labeled a fundamental force (which means it cant be explained as emergent from a more fundamental something) yet we all know the gravity “effect” as i have dubed it is caused by the curvature of spacetime.
“Spacetime” somehow not consider a fundamental force, but we have 2 types of radiation to both make the list.
Omfg you started it now.
Electromagnetism is emergent of quantum stuff. Quantum is not a fundamental force. Electromagnetism is. Aaaargh
Science is in shambles and a fucking joke (/s)