this post was submitted on 12 Jan 2024
72 points (95.0% liked)

AI

4141 readers
1 users here now

Artificial intelligence (AI) is intelligence demonstrated by machines, unlike the natural intelligence displayed by humans and animals, which involves consciousness and emotionality. The distinction between the former and the latter categories is often revealed by the acronym chosen.

founded 3 years ago
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 2 points 10 months ago (1 children)

If Ais were capable of invention and creation, I might agree. But they aren't. They regurgitate what they are modeled on.

We don't teach AIs, they don't learn, there's no university, there's no fundamentals. We just have models that reproject. They take the training data, mix it all up, and then project it out again.

There is use to that, but gpt isn't a child. It can not learn, comprehend, or understand. It's a tool, and as a tool, it depends heavily on the work created by others.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (2 children)

You overestimate humans with your argument.

You couldn't even make your comment right now if a teacher hadn't taught you english, you couldn't have typed it if engineers hadn't created computers and keyboards, you couldn't have posted it without network technicians who setup and run the internet...

The modern world is literally the combined work of billions of humans.

If you were left alone as a baby, you'd be dead.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

No, humans learn, ais regurgitate. There is a distinct difference.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 10 months ago

You cant really compare like that, learning is an input and regurgitating is an output.

Humans learn and regurgitate much the same as an AI learns and regurgitates.

A human can only output things based on input it's received in the past. Try imagining a new color. Any color you could possibly come up with is just some combination of colors that already exist. By painting with purple are you not "regurgitating" the work of red and blue?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

Okay so according to your logic, it is impossible for us to have this conversation. No human could've invented those things, therefore they can't exist.

Or are you saying humans can learn, but our capacity for that is greatly amplified by the knowledge humanity gave us?

If it's the latter, yeah, we're standing on the shoulders of giants. But AI is fundamentally different, that's the point of the comment above.

AI could never in however many million years get to the point humanity has gotten to, because we humans learn, and AIs don't. They would stagnate without humans even if they could train from each other.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 10 months ago

How is it fundamentally different?

AIs can learn, it's totally possible to setup one that will remember what you've said in future answers. The fact that they don't have their own agency is irrelevant. They still learn the same way we do, by looking at a ton of examples, and then trying and receiving feedback from trainers.

Lets say you record yourself walking in a mall, and the mall has copyrighted music playing in the background. Do you need to pay copyright to make that recording? No. You would only need to pay copyright if you then played the video in a commercial context.

So the recording, processing, and storing of the copyright material does not require a license. Only the playback. Which in the case of AI doesn't happen, they don't produce exact copies of copyright material because the exact copyrighted data isn't actually stored inside them. They may be similar in nature, but revealing the plot of a book you read to others is not considered a copyright infringement.