this post was submitted on 04 Apr 2025
359 points (88.3% liked)

Technology

68441 readers
2878 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] pelespirit@sh.itjust.works 4 points 3 days ago (1 children)

I read an article that it can "think" in small chunks. They don't know how much though. This was also months ago, it's probably expanded by now.

[–] FunnyUsername@lemmy.world 6 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (3 children)

anything that claims it "thinks" in any way I immediately dismiss as an advertisement of some sort. these models are doing very interesting things, but it is in no way "thinking" as a sentient mind does.

[–] pelespirit@sh.itjust.works 2 points 3 days ago (1 children)

I wish I could find the article. It was researchers and they were freaked out just as much as anyone else. It's like slightly over chance that it "thought," not some huge revolutionary leap.

[–] FunnyUsername@lemmy.world 5 points 3 days ago (1 children)

there has been a flooding of these articles. everyone wants to sell their llm as "the smartest one closest to a real human" even though the entire concept of calling them AI is a marketing misnomer

[–] pelespirit@sh.itjust.works 0 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Maybe? Didn't seem like a sales job at the time, more like a warning. You could be right though.

[–] TimewornTraveler@lemm.ee -1 points 1 day ago

they post articles like that all the time. warnings make great clickbait

[–] stephen01king@lemmy.zip -3 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Anybody who claims they don't "think" before we even figure out completely how they work and even how human thoughts work are just spreading anti-AI sentiment beyond what is considered logical.

You should become a better example than an AI by only arguing based on facts rather than things you hallucinate if you want to prove your own position on this matter.

[–] TimewornTraveler@lemm.ee -1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

shouldn't you say the inverse is true lol why call it thinking if we don't know what thinking is or what it's doing?

why are you cool with pro ai and against anti ai sentiments? either way it's a value judgment, quit acting like yours is the correct opinion

[–] stephen01king@lemmy.zip 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I wasn't calling it thinking. I'm saying people claiming it's not is just jumping the gun. It's also funny you're simply claiming I am pro AI without needing any proof. This is what I meant when I said people who are anti-AI should strive to be better than the AI they criticise. Acting based on non-facts makes you no better than AI with their hallucinations.

Its also funny that you're calling me out when I'm just mirroring what the other guy is doing to make a point. He's acting like his is the correct opinion, yet you only calling me out because the guy is on your side of the argument. That's simply a bad faith argument on your part.

[–] TimewornTraveler@lemm.ee 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I see the misunderstanding, sorry. You're still in the wrong though. while you weren't calling it thinking, the article certainly was. THAT'S why we're saying it's not. we're doing what you said we should, but it's the inverse, and you call it anti-AI. the jackass who wrote that article is jumping the gun and we're saying "how tf can you call it thinking" and i see your reply calling that anti AI, seems like a reasonable mistake ye?

[–] stephen01king@lemmy.zip 1 points 1 day ago

But the comment I replied to didn't just deny the confirmation that AI is thinking, it also denied that AI "thinks" at all. That puts him in a position of making an unproven claim. In fact, he is directly making that claim, while the article he is denying only alludes to saying that LLM "thinks" like a human. That makes his unproven claim even more egregious than the article's.

[–] LarmyOfLone@lemm.ee -2 points 2 days ago

You know they don't think - even though "It's a peculiar truth that we don't understand how large language models (LLMs) actually work."?

It's truly shocking to read this from a mess of connected neurons and synapses like yourself. You're simply doing fancy word prediction of the next word /s