1292

submitted 7 months ago by Maven@lemmy.world to c/programmer_humor@programming.dev

167 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[-] Aceticon@lemmy.world 6 points 7 months ago

There is no logical reason for you to mention in this context that property of human intelligence if you do not meant to make a point that they're related.

So there are only two logical readings for that statement of yours:

Those things are wholly unrelated in that statement which makes you a nutter, a troll or a complete total moron that goes around writting meaningless stuff because you're irrational, taking the piss or too dumb to know better.
In the heat of the discussion you were trying to make the point that one implies the other to reinforce previous arguments you agree with, only it wasn't quite as good a point as you expected.

I chose to believe the latter, but if you tell me it's the former, who am I to to doubt your own self-assessment...

[-] BatmanAoD@programming.dev 0 points 7 months ago

No, you leapt directly from what I said, which was relevant on its own, to an absurdly stronger claim.

I didn't say that humans and AI are the same. I think the original comment, that modern AI is "smart enough to be tricked", is essentially true: not in the sense that humans are conscious of being "tricked", but in a similar way to how humans can be misled or can misunderstand a rule they're supposed to be following. That's certainly a property of the complexity of system, and the comment below it, to which I originally responded, seemed to imply that being "too complicated to have precise guidelines" somehow demonstrates that AI are not "smart". But of course "smart" entities, such as humans, share that exact property of being "too complicated to have precise guidelines", which was my point!