This comment just hurts.
What were you saying about "periods or commas in all of history"?
Or something about "the soul not trying to control people"?
This comment just hurts.
What were you saying about "periods or commas in all of history"?
Or something about "the soul not trying to control people"?
And? I'm not sure what point you're trying to make.
Just look it up. It made the news rounds about 10 or so years ago. It was a big deal at the time. Just about everyone covered it and Lenovo acknowledged it and, IIRC they apologized for it
You mean arguing with people who show you're wrong? Good move.
Is 15lbs 2nd?
It's not a requirement to have all those things. Having just one is enough to meet the definition. Such as problem solving, which LLMs are capable of doing.
That's the same as arguing "life" is conscious, even though most life isn't conscious or sapient.
Some day there could be AI that's conscious, and when it happens we will call that AI conscious. That still doesn't make all other AI conscious.
It's such a weirdly binary viewpoint.
No, it's because it isn't conscious. An LLM is a static model (all our AI models are in fact). For something to be conscious or sapient it would require a neural net that can morph and adapt in real-time. Nothing currently can do that. Training and inference are completely separate modes. A real AGI would have to have the training and inference steps occurring at once and continuously.
Education was always garbage though. It is designed to generate obidient wage slaves.
in the US
Fixed that for you
You have that backwards. People are using the colloquial definition of AI.
"Intelligence" is defined by a group of things like pattern recognition, ability to use tools, problem solving, etc. If one of those definitions are met then the thing in question can be said to have intelligence.
A flat worm has intelligence, just very little of it. An object detection model has intelligence (pattern recognition) just not a lot of it. An LLM has more intelligence than a basic object detection model, but still far less than a human.
Oh I got the joke. I was just responding in kind