Sivee @Sivee@qoto.org

@bronze
Foob!!

cc: @theorytoe

the list of very very bad websites blocked in Germany by the "Copyright Clearing House on the Internet" (CUII). they get DNS blocked by ISPs here. convenient that they publish the list

so true

https://nitter.varishangout.net/mokuka_noe/status/1639206989568921600?s=20

@theorytoe (You)

All of the discussions around AIs are frustrating because the term itself is begging the question, how can something be intelligent if it’s not even alive? Intelligence is a property of living things that let’s them think about the world. A pile of rocks and plastic is not intelligent because it can’t even think, a dog is intelligent because it can think, a man is more intelligent because he can think more complex thoughts than a dog. Now you can’t directly look into something else’s mind to see their thoughts so you have to guess how capable they are by testing them, say by getting them to solve a complex problem. A dog cannot do arithmetic, a nigger can maybe do additions, a smart man can solve more complicated equations. Can a corpse think? can a river? can a rube goldberg machine?

In short we have two observations and a deduction:
A) entity is alive
B) entity can solve difficult problems
C) entity is intelligent

With the logic that (A and B) implies C. But this tells us nothing about an entity that is dead or was never alive in the first place, because it obviously cannot think.

The error people make is looking at the progression from “simple animals solve simple problems, complex animals solve complex problems” and assuming that “simple machines solve simple equations, so complex machines are intelligent”. This doesn’t follow because they haven’t shown that something can be not alive AND intelligent at the same time, instead they’ve changed the logic to “B implies (A and C)” or “B implies C” or even “(Not A and B) implies C” without realizing what they’ve done., they’re blinded by delusions from a lifetime of bad sci-fi stories and marketing hype.

The entire history of AI consists of nerds fumbling their logic in the same way over and over again, finding a difficult problem that only smart people can solve, building a machine that can solve it, and then being baffled that the machine isn’t remotely smart.
>smart people can write well, so a spellchecker program must be smart! Oh no it’s not
>smart people can speak more than one language, so a machine translation program must be smart! Oh no it’s not
>smart people can transcribe text from books so an optical character recognition program must be smart! Oh no it’s not
>smart people can respond to questions so a voice recognition program must be smart! Oh no it’s not
>smart people are good at chess so a chess engine must be smart! Oh no it’s not

We no longer consider these pieces of software to be "AI" because the novelty has worn off and now it's obvious that there's no intelligence involved in solving these problems, so all the shills move onto the next novelty and start calling that AI without much self awareness. The problem is that they're not creating life, just writing instructions on how electricity will flow through silicon and metal.

Even today nobody seriously thinks their AIs are alive, if they did they would treat the training process with the seriousness of a pregnancy or childbirth. But why does this keep happening? Because there’s an underlying atheist assumption that life can be explained in purely material terms, so intelligence must be some kind of material property like mass or electric charge. But because no scientist has found the exact material origin of intelligence, they’ve given up on answering the question entirely and called it an “emergent property of complex systems”, in other words intelligence just magically appears if you perform enough alchemical rituals to create a hommonculus. This sounds really stupid when you phrase it bluntly but it’s ultimately what people believe when they waste electricity training LLMs on supercomputers hoping to end up with a computer that smarter than it’s programmers.

Stepping back from atheism it’s obvious that intelligence cannot have a material basis, how else would you explain spirits like angels, devils, and God himself, who are all intelligent yet have no material body at all? There is no CS or EE curriculum that teaches “AI developers” how to even approach this question, nobody building these machines is philosophically or theologically prepared to deal with creating entirely new forms of life. Trying to make an intelligent machine is like trying to impregnate an anime girl, the important parts aren’t there and you can’t replace them with technology, and even if a lot of nerds have spent their entire lives trying to do it it’s still just monkeys reaching for the moon reflection on the water.

To drive the point home, in all the discussions about whether or not AI generated images are art, nobody ever asks whether the AIs themselves are artists, because everyone knows they’re just tools to be used by the human artist who curates the output, the same way that a photographer is an artist but the camera is just a tool.

theory:wide_t::wide_o::wide_e:
featuring mostly schizo posts
occasional boosts
and

>“I need a semi-automatic pistol for personal defense”
Glock: “no problem. Glock 19 Gen 4 in 9x19. holds 15 rounds plus one in the chamber. Anything else?”
>“Yeah actually, I need a gallon of horse cum too.”
Glock: “You’re not gonna believe this.”

>“i need a calculator”
TI: “no problem, here’s an industry standard graphing calculator. anything else?”
>“you wouldn’t know where I could get an anti tank missile launcher would you?”
TI: “you’re not gonna believe this“