Skip Navigation

InitialsDiceBearhttps://github.com/dicebear/dicebearhttps://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/„Initials” (https://github.com/dicebear/dicebear) by „DiceBear”, licensed under „CC0 1.0” (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/)GI
Posts
1
Comments
787
Joined
2 yr. ago

  • We both know this has nothing to do with 'emotional distress' and everything to do with your overly large ego being bruised by the fact that you're wrong. It's classic fallacious behavior to argue as you have and then not engage with the opposition. The only "emotionally distressed" one here is you, and it's honestly really sad considering it's an anonymous forum and nobody even knows that it's you being stupid behind the screen. :/

  • That's kinda the whole point of my comment is that things like Turing's method completely fall apart under heavy scrutiny. Further, the Turing Test specifically tells you nothing about whether or not something IS thinking, just that it MAY be. Big difference.

    I see you didn't engage with the rest of my comment tho. Would you like to?

    Just wanted to add this as it and stuff like it comes up pretty quickly when you research the turing test:

    "On the other hand, there are several criticisms and limitations of the Turing Test as a measure of machine intelligence. Some of the main issues include:

    The test focuses solely on the ability to mimic human-like behavior and communication, rather than on the underlying intelligence or consciousness of the machine.

    The test is heavily dependent on the human evaluator’s subjective judgment, and may be influenced by factors such as the machine’s appearance or the human’s own biases.

    The test does not take into account the possibility that a machine could be intelligent in ways that are fundamentally different from human intelligence.

    The test does not consider the possibility of a machine deceiving the human evaluator, by providing pre-programmed or rehearsed responses rather than truly understanding the meaning of the questions."

    LLMs would fall into the last, as they train on the "answers" so to speak and just match them to the "question".

  • You really downvoted yourself? I stand corrected I suppose. If your question is serious: there's obviously no problem with doing so, I think most people just assume that comment scores start at 1 from the original users upvote.

  • I can see this for a small percentage of adult users but tbh it's probably just praying on the sexualities of quite young boys (think 9-11 range) that know they like women's bodies but don't know about or are ashamed of watching porn

  • https://www.azquotes.com/picture-quotes/quote-i-shall-not-today-attempt-further-to-define-the-kinds-of-material-but-i-know-it-when-potter-stewart-143-23-28.jpg

    I guess I should elaborate a bit. This is from a famous SC court case concerning 'obscenity' it's almost impossible to provide any kind of definition concerning reason or thinking because it's on the very edge of what we can ever really 'know'. At the same time I know that if we train something on both the questions and the answers and make it really efficient at giving the right answers, it's obviously not thinking, just indexing information. A great example is how AI can't create new information without a seed of absolute randomness. Humans don't have a random bone in their body.

    A fun (though outdated) video series about the edge of the knowable:

    https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PL3096540179B12F8D&si=SC-F1_T9WFSn-5XN