this post was submitted on 01 Aug 2025
-38 points (32.7% liked)
Asklemmy
49768 readers
446 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
Search asklemmy π
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
No. It isn't. First and foremost, it produces a randomised output that it has learned to make look like other stuff on the Internet. It has as much to do with consciousness as a set of dice and the fact that you think it's more than that already shows how you don't understand what it is and what it does.
AI doesn't produce anything new. It doesn't reason, it isn't creative. As it has no understanding or experience, it doesn't develop or change. Using it to produce art shows a lack of understanding of what art is supposed to be or accomplish. AI only chews up what's being thrown at it to vomit it onto the Web, without any hint of something new. It also lacks understanding about the world, so asking it about decisions to be made is not only like asking an encyclopedia that comes up with answers on the fly based on whether they sound nice, regardless of the answers being correct, applicable or even possible.
And on top of all of this, on top of people using a bunch of statistical dice rolls to rob themselves of experiences and progress that they'd have made had they made their own decisions or learned painting themselves, it's an example of the "rules for thee, not for me". An industry that has lobbied against the free information exchange for decades, that sent lawyers after people who downloaded decades old books or movies for a few hours of private enjoyment suddenly thinks that there might be the possibility of profits around the corner, so they break all the laws they helped create without even the slightest bit of self-awareness. Their technology is just a hollow shell that makes the Internet unusable for all the shit it produces, but at least it isn't anything else. Their business model, however, openly declares that people are only second class citizens.
There you are. That's why I hate it. What's not to hate?
Many humans don't, either.
Oh really? Man, you don't say!
What's your point?
False equivalencies, or 'Whatabouts' are not a form of argument, they're a deflection debate tactic.
I am will aware it is not conscious π. Hence the word RESEMBLES.
But here's the scary thing. Even with all your song and dance you just typed when we are interacting with AI our brains literally can not tell the difference between human interaction and AI interaction. And that to me....is WILD and so trippy
I can certainly tell, at least a lot of the time. I won't say all of the time, but LLMs are squarely in uncanny valley territory for me. Most of what they generate seems slightly off, in one way or another.
I've never knowingly engaged with a proper chat bot beyond the 'virtual help desk' things some sites use. By proper I mean some sizable system beyond what can be typically run at home.
Home ran ones are bizarre though, so far whatever I try they get stuck on go-to phrases and tend to return to specific formats of response over and over. Very much not passing the turing test.
It doesn't even resemble a consciousness. It's not even close.
Also, why are you asking your question to begin with if your answer is then just a condescending "but sometimes we can't tell AI from humans apart"? Yeah, no shit. It's been like that at least since the 60s. That's not the point. If that's all you have, then go ahead, be happy you found something "wild and so trippy". But don't ask if there are legitimate reasons to reject AI if all you want to do is indulge yourself.
Yeah, that mostly just proves that humans are idiots, something we've known for awhile.