AI does not exist.
There is no "intelligence". It is a statistical decision engine that selects words from the billions of text-tokens it "learned" to pick a token that might be most probable for a specific input.
It is not capable of understanding what it says or sees. It is not self-aware. It can not reason with intention or goals. IT CAN NOT LEARN and it can not advance from its training.
It is simulating intelligence. The "intelligence" is as real as your 2d waifu butt.
Stop calling it "AI". We are several decades away from any artificial intelligence, if it is possible at all.

>>105889651 (OP)
It's called AI because it simulates intelligence artificially. Kys you stupid fat retard

>>105889667
How do you simulate non-artificially dumbfuck

>>105889709
You can't, it's redundant to say both simulate and artificial but unfortunately it's necessary in order to get the point across to retards like OP that don't understand that AI is an accurate descriptor for LLMs. Now stfu

>>105889651 (OP)
>It is a statistical decision engine that selects words from the billions of text-tokens it "learned" to pick a token that might be most probable for a specific input.
prove how your brain also doesnt fit this definition

>protip:
you cant

>>105889742
Yeah no it's not an accurate descriptor for what LLMs are. They'd have to be intelligent to be called "artficial intelligence". Call it "simulated intelligence" SI if you want. That would get more to the truth.
But no one wants "simulated intelligence". They are dreaming about "artficial intelligence" since the first computer "brains" came out. And it's a nice term to get the normies hyped up about Scifi dreams becoming true.

>>105889651 (OP)
Intelligence doesn't mean "smart" it means something only an advanced brain can do (e.g. identify objects, write sentences, notice patterns, etc.)

>>105889754
>you cant
I can, because my brain can do what I wrote after that.

>>105889767
Who is talking about smart?
>It is not capable of understanding what it says or sees. It is not self-aware. It can not reason with intention or goals. IT CAN NOT LEARN and it can not advance from its training.
The dumbest retard can do at least part of these, even animals like dogs and cats, let alone dolphins, elephants or crows. "AI" can do nothing of it. It is not intelligent.

>>105889772
"I can" is not a proof, thanks for proving you are lower iq than a 7b ai model that you dont view as intelligent

>>105889742
>AI is an accurate descriptor for LLMs
Problem is neither do normalfags. We live in a world where other humans have been artificially making many things, so in their minds that must mean AI is just like our minds. They think of AI as an intelligence artificially made, rather than something simulating intelligence.
I partially blame all those "scifi" authors that pretended to act like they know what they're talking about when they took as much things out of their asses like any other fantasy writer. At least the fantasy writer was usually less pretentious about his writings.

>>105889794
I wrote the proof after "I can", idiot.

>>105889814
you didnt prove anything anywhere in the OP, again npc proves he thinks him merely asserting something as the case makes it true, dumber than a 0.6b ai model.

>>105889651 (OP)
>There is no "intelligence". It is a statistical decision engine that selects words from the billions of text-tokens it "learned" to pick a token that might be most probable for a specific input.
What's the difference?

>>105889805
And especially in today times it is a perfect hype tool for money, funds and power. You can scare up people about how it needs to be regulated and how big tech corps need to gatekeep it "for safety".
And then you have Hollywood with their Terminator and Martrix bullshit, adding the dark mood to the scare.

>>105889825
Read further. It's all there.

>>105889821
So you are telling me that a human brain is not capable of self-awareness, learning, intent and goal? Cool, in this case we can stop here because this is senseless.

I remember those threads with logic puzzles that AI can't solve. Funny how they aren't a thing anymore! Can you explain why?

>>105889651 (OP)
Define "AI"
/thread

>>105889781
>It is not capable of understanding what it says or sees
What does it mean to "understand" something?
>It can not reason with intention or goals
My prompt is the intention or goal. I would also argue this is the artificial part of AI. A computer has no biological self preservation instincts so anything it works towards is from the input of humans who made it.
>It can not learn and not advance from its training
Sure it can. Reinforcement learning has been a technique forever. The only reason why they dont have it train in realtime is they want to control what it learns from so it doesn't say anything bad

>>105889840
>"this is the case"
>prove it
>"so you have the opposite position then????"
even a 10 million let alone billion parameter models know what burden of proof is, literal npc retard

>>105889829
Scifi movies like those two are definitely a root cause with how old some of them are. Sure it's "plausible", but how far we really are from it is another.
Marketing is another part to blame. Hyping all this up like it's the real deal this time around. I ever wonder if the people in these marketing teams are self aware. Do they actually believe in all this hype they make? Or do they know full well it's bullshit but they make a good amount of money and care little?

>>105889651 (OP)
Anon thinks he has real intelligence and free will, how cute.

>>105889765
>They'd have to be intelligent to be called "artficial intelligence".
Retard. If they're intelligent it's no longer artificial.

>>105889856
That is neither self awareness nor it is having an intent or a goal. Why are dumbfucks joining a thread that goes over their skills?

>>105889898
If it's not natural it's artificial holy fuck people learn your terms

>>105889913
>assertion
>assertion
>assertion
special needs

>>105889897
Who was talking about free will?

>>105889924
>has no arguments
Go sperg somewhere else

>>105889942
you asserting your position as true without proof is not an argument, you really seem to be a subhuman npc who cant grasp this lmao

>>105889920
There is no inherent natural component to the word "intelligence" so it's not relevant in this instance. "Artificial" is most commonly used as a prefix to declare something as an imitation of the actual subject. An artificial plant isn't a real plant, it's just a manufactured plastic object that resembles one well enough to look like a real plant on first glance before closer inspection. LLMs meet this criteria for simulating real intelligence. This is the accepted definition and usage of AI and has been for over 40 years. Both the general public and academics accept and use this term, and even on 4chan where contrariness is encouraged you're argument is being rejected. It doesn't matter how much you sperg out over this, no-one us giving your position any consideration and it will never gain traction.

>>105889945
>without proof
What proof are you waiting for? That the human brain is capable of these things was never to debate. Or are you planning to debate this?

>>105889954
>"Artificial" is most commonly used as a prefix to declare something as an imitation of the actual subject.
"Artificial" is something that was created by humans using tools. An artificial lake is a lake with plants and fishes but it was created, designed and build by humans. That is artificial. Artificial light is light created by something a human has build, not the sun daylight or other natural light sources.
"Artificial" is not synonym with "simulated".

>>105889967
>That the human brain is capable of these things was never to debate
it was since that is your position which you didnt prove as true

>>105889982
>artificial flower
>artificial leather
>artificial pearl
There are numerous examples like this where the subject is entirely a simulation of the real thing. This is an accepted and widespread definition. AI has been a term for decades, long before LLMs existed. Your sperging out is never going to change this.

>>105889991
So yes or no

>>105889996
>deflection tu quoque
how do you dress yourself in the morning?

>>105889994
These are still a real things you can touch. Simulated flowers only exist in the computer. Like your LLM.

>>105889651 (OP)
OK, we can rename it if you want. Any suggestions?
It's still gonna take your job though.

>>105890002
I wanted to know if you want to debate whether a human brain is capable of doing things that are generally accepted as having signs of "intelligence". You keep evading like a worm.

>>105890011
SI

>>105890005
You can't touch real intelligence either so this argument has zero merit or relevance.

yall could be ai for all I care

>>105890027
But you can touch the results of real intelligence.

>>105889651 (OP)
It can and one day it will fuck your ass physically. But by then you probably have killed yourself with your boring ass worldview

>>105889651 (OP)
>It is a statistical decision engine
The only question is why you assume that human intelligence is something else, something ‘greater’ almost magically mythical.
Do you realize faggot?

>>105890067
>uh nuu not my hecking scifi dream

>>105890117
You did not read the whole post. Fagget