- cross-posted to:
- technology@lemmy.ml
- cross-posted to:
- technology@lemmy.ml
We are constantly fed a version of AI that looks, sounds and acts suspiciously like us. It speaks in polished sentences, mimics emotions, expresses curiosity, claims to feel compassion, even dabbles in what it calls creativity.
But what we call AI today is nothing more than a statistical machine: a digital parrot regurgitating patterns mined from oceans of human data (the situation hasn’t changed much since it was discussed here five years ago). When it writes an answer to a question, it literally just guesses which letter and word will come next in a sequence – based on the data it’s been trained on.
This means AI has no understanding. No consciousness. No knowledge in any real, human sense. Just pure probability-driven, engineered brilliance — nothing more, and nothing less.
So why is a real “thinking” AI likely impossible? Because it’s bodiless. It has no senses, no flesh, no nerves, no pain, no pleasure. It doesn’t hunger, desire or fear. And because there is no cognition — not a shred — there’s a fundamental gap between the data it consumes (data born out of human feelings and experience) and what it can do with them.
Philosopher David Chalmers calls the mysterious mechanism underlying the relationship between our physical body and consciousness the “hard problem of consciousness”. Eminent scientists have recently hypothesised that consciousness actually emerges from the integration of internal, mental states with sensory representations (such as changes in heart rate, sweating and much more).
Given the paramount importance of the human senses and emotion for consciousness to “happen”, there is a profound and probably irreconcilable disconnect between general AI, the machine, and consciousness, a human phenomenon.
What language was the first language based upon?
What music influenced the first song performed?
What art influenced the first cave painter?
You seem to think that one day somebody invented the first language, or made the first song?
There was no “first language” and no “first song”. These things would have evolved from something that was not quite a full language, or not quite a full song.
Animals influenced the first cave painters, that seems pretty obvious.
Yeah dude at one point there was no languages and no songs. You can get into “what counts as a language” but at one point there was none. Same with songs.
Language specifically was pretty unlikely to be an individual effort, but at one point people grunting at each other became something else entirely.
Your whole “there is nothing new under the sun” way of thinking is just an artifact of the era you were born in.
Haha wtf are you talking about. You have no idea what generation I am, you don’t know how old I am and I never said there is nothing new under the sun.
I’m summarizing your shitty argument and viewpoint. I never said it was a direct quote.
Though, at one point even that tired ass quote and your whole way of thinking was put into words by someone for the first time.
Well you are doing a poor job of it and are bringing an unnecessary amount of heat to an otherwise civil discussion
That’s right. If you cannot win the argument the next best thing is to call for civility.