791
Are you telling me they don't?
(lemmy.today)
Too spicy?
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 18 May 2026
791 points (100.0% liked)
memes
21349 readers
1623 users here now
Community rules
1. Be civil
No trolling, bigotry or other insulting / annoying behaviour
2. No politics
This is non-politics community. For political memes please go to !politicalmemes@lemmy.world
3. No recent reposts
Check for reposts when posting a meme, you can only repost after 1 month
4. No bots
No bots without the express approval of the mods or the admins
5. No Spam/Ads/AI Slop
No advertisements or spam. This is an instance rule and the only way to live. We also consider AI slop to be spam in this community and is subject to removal.
A collection of some classic Lemmy memes for your enjoyment
Sister communities
- !tenforward@lemmy.world : Star Trek memes, chat and shitposts
- !lemmyshitpost@lemmy.world : Lemmy Shitposts, anything and everything goes.
- !linuxmemes@lemmy.world : Linux themed memes
- !comicstrips@lemmy.world : for those who love comic stories.
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
A large language model is giving you the statistically most likely words to your prompt, weighted by prettymuch everything written online. You would describe that as "intelligent"?
Intelligence is a description of capability, not the means by which the capability is achieved. So if the output looks intelligent then the process is intelligent regardless of how it works. The difference between natural and artificial intelligence is how the intelligence is achieved - what you're describing doesn't match any intelligence found in nature so if it produces intelligent output then it's artificially intelligent.
Most every other computer program made will also meet this definition. Hell, this definition is so loose, you can use it to describe evolution as an intelligent process.
What if I push it one step further back the chain? In so far as these programs are recognizably intelligent, it is only because conscious people put a lot of time and work into making them. Into setting up the systems that statistically weighed the models. The model is intelligent, but it's not artificially so. It's just an expression of plain old human intelligence, obfuscated through sci-fi terminology.
Normal computer programs only look intelligent in very narrow areas, like number crunching, which is why we don't tend to call them intelligent. Their general intelligence is next to zero. Even if we were delusional enough to think life came from non-life and developed intelligence by random chance and natural selection, you have the same thing there where you get much more non-intelligent output than intelligent output. Monkeys on typewriters could also look intelligent some of the time, but looking at the totality of output they wouldn't.
All artificial things are expressions of human behaviors. That's kind of the definition of artificial.
I think what this conversation is dancing around is that we have a colloquial definition of "Artificial Intelligence", inherited from science fiction and broadly (albeit with much specific variation) understood as "conscious machine"...
...and then we have a set of computer programs that are - fundamentally - no different from any other program (one Turing machine can, in principle, run all the same algorithms as any other Turing machine). Yes, we can technically describe these programs with the words "artificial" and "intelligent", but doing so is kind of disingenuous, given the cultural association that predates any use of the term in comp sci fields.
totally different conversation, but its also a fun one:
yeah I won't discount the possibility that life has other origins. At the same time, you gotta deal with Occam's Razor: working with what we currently know about the history of the planet, life emerging from non-life requires fewer assumptions. It also cannot be discounted as a possibility.