[OpenAI CEO Sam] Altman brags about ChatGPT-4.5’s improved “emotional intelligence,” which he says makes users feel like they’re “talking to a thoughtful person.” Dario Amodei, the CEO of the AI company Anthropic, argued last year that the next generation of artificial intelligence will be “smarter than a Nobel Prize winner.” Demis Hassabis, the CEO of Google’s DeepMind, said the goal is to create “models that are able to understand the world around us.” These statements betray a conceptual error: Large language models do not, cannot, and will not “understand” anything at all. They are not emotionally intelligent or smart in any meaningful or recognizably human sense of the word. LLMs are impressive probability gadgets that have been fed nearly the entire internet, and produce writing not by thinking but by making statistically informed guesses about which lexical item is likely to follow another.

OP: https://slashdot.org/story/25/06/09/062257/ai-is-not-intelligent-the-atlantic-criticizes-scam-underlying-the-ai-industry

Primary source: https://www.msn.com/en-us/technology/artificial-intelligence/artificial-intelligence-is-not-intelligent/ar-AA1GcZBz

Secondary source: https://bookshop.org/a/12476/9780063418561

    • Catoblepas@piefed.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      16 hours ago

      If using AI to make ‘art’ (have a machine regurgitate other people’s art, the ones available right now literally can’t exist without other people’s art that it was trained on without permission, you don’t get to just skip this part because it annoys you) makes you an artist, then so does paying someone to make art and telling them how to make it. And walking into a restaurant and ordering something also makes you a chef. Paying to have someone build your house? You better believe that makes you an architect, carpenter, plumber, and electrician.

    • ckmnstr@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      16 hours ago

      Comparing Gen AI to a paintbrush is the same as comparing a quad to a unicycle. Sure, you’re not falling over, but is it really the same feat.

    • bcovertigo@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      16 hours ago

      He’s right and this is why his comment is the artwork of the person replying to him. It’s no different from a keyboard. It’s a really advanced, very complicated keyboard.

      But I know the same people who argue lemmings aren’t intelligent also don’t want to recognize generated comments as being the property of the user who generated it. It’s “shitposting” and thus should be subject to scorn, ridicule, and has somehow stolen from all commenters everywhere, who have ever lived or ever will live in the future.

      • ZDL@lazysoci.al
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        17 minutes ago

        I actually think that the prompt is, in fact, protected by copyright if it’s a non-trivial prompt. I mean “anime chick, big bewbs” won’t be protected by copyright, but a long sequence of detailed instructions would be.

        What’s not protected by copyright (in any sane legal milieu) is the output.