this post was submitted on 22 Dec 2024
386 points (95.5% liked)
Technology
60047 readers
2920 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
That just Compares it to human level intelligence. Something which we cannot currently even quantify. Let alone understand. It's ultimately a comparison, a simile not a scientific definition.
Search engines have always been databases. With interfaces programmed by humans. Not ai. They've never suddenly gained new functionality inexplicably. If there's a new feature someone programmed it.
Search engines are however becoming llms and are getting worse for it. Unless you think eating rocks and glue is particularly intelligent. Because there is no comprehension there. It's simply trying to make its output match patterns it recognizes. Which is a precursor step. But is not "intelligence". Unless a program doing what it's programed to do is artificial intelligence. Which is such a meaningless measure because that would mean notepad is artificial intelligence. Windows is artificial intelligence. Linux is artificial intelligence.
You can argue what you think the words should mean in your opinion in the field of artificial intelligence. I agree with some of them.
It just doesn't change what they actually do mean.
You can't just throw out random Wikipedia links. For example, the Article on AGI explicitly says we don't have a definition of what human level cognition actually is. Which is what the person you were replying to was saying. You're doing a fallacious appeal to authority, except that the authority doesn't agree with you.