this post was submitted on 28 Jun 2025
966 points (94.8% liked)

Technology

72784 readers
3807 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
 

We are constantly fed a version of AI that looks, sounds and acts suspiciously like us. It speaks in polished sentences, mimics emotions, expresses curiosity, claims to feel compassion, even dabbles in what it calls creativity.

But what we call AI today is nothing more than a statistical machine: a digital parrot regurgitating patterns mined from oceans of human data (the situation hasn’t changed much since it was discussed here five years ago). When it writes an answer to a question, it literally just guesses which letter and word will come next in a sequence – based on the data it’s been trained on.

This means AI has no understanding. No consciousness. No knowledge in any real, human sense. Just pure probability-driven, engineered brilliance — nothing more, and nothing less.

So why is a real “thinking” AI likely impossible? Because it’s bodiless. It has no senses, no flesh, no nerves, no pain, no pleasure. It doesn’t hunger, desire or fear. And because there is no cognition — not a shred — there’s a fundamental gap between the data it consumes (data born out of human feelings and experience) and what it can do with them.

Philosopher David Chalmers calls the mysterious mechanism underlying the relationship between our physical body and consciousness the “hard problem of consciousness”. Eminent scientists have recently hypothesised that consciousness actually emerges from the integration of internal, mental states with sensory representations (such as changes in heart rate, sweating and much more).

Given the paramount importance of the human senses and emotion for consciousness to “happen”, there is a profound and probably irreconcilable disconnect between general AI, the machine, and consciousness, a human phenomenon.

https://archive.ph/Fapar

(page 2) 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] psycho_driver@lemmy.world 14 points 2 weeks ago (5 children)

Hey AI helped me stick it to the insurance man the other day. I was futzing around with coverage amounts on one of the major insurance companies websites pre-renewal to try to get the best rate and it spit up a NaN renewal amount for our most expensive vehicle. It let me go through with the renewal less that $700 and now says I'm paid in full for the six month period. It's been days now with no follow-up . . . I'm pretty sure AI snuck that one through for me.

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] mechoman444@lemmy.world 12 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (70 children)

In that case let's stop calling it ai, because it isn't and use it's correct abbreviation: llm.

load more comments (70 replies)
[–] elbarto777@lemmy.world 10 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (3 children)

I agreed with most of what you said, except the part where you say that real AI is impossible because it's bodiless or "does not experience hunger" and other stuff. That part does not compute.

A general AI does not need to be conscious.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] confuser@lemmy.zip 8 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (3 children)

The thing is, ai is compression of intelligence but not intelligence itself. That's the part that confuses people. Ai is the ability to put anything describable into a compressed zip.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] AcidiclyBasicGlitch@sh.itjust.works 8 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

It's only as intelligent as the people that control and regulate it.

Given all the documented instances of Facebook and other social media using subliminal emotional manipulation, I honestly wonder if the recent cases of AI chat induced psychosis are related to something similar.

Like we know they're meant to get you to continue using them, which is itself a bit of psychological manipulation. How far does it go? Could there also be things like using subliminal messaging/lighting? This stuff is all so new and poorly understood, but that usually doesn't stop these sacks of shit from moving full speed with implementing this kind of thing.

It could be that certain individuals have unknown vulnerabilities that make them more susceptible to psychosis due to whatever manipulations are used to make people keep using the product. Maybe they're doing some things to users that are harmful, but didn't seem problematic during testing?

Or equally as likely, they never even bothered to test it out, just started subliminally fucking with people's brains, and now people are going haywire because a bunch of unethical shit heads believe they are the chosen elite who know what must be done to ensure society is able to achieve greatness. It just so happens that "what must be done," also makes them a ton of money and harms people using their products.

It's so fucking absurd to watch the same people jamming unregulated AI and automation down our throats while simultaneously forcing traditionalism, and a legal system inspired by Catholic integralist belief on society.

If you criticize the lack of regulations in the wild west of technology policy, or even suggest just using a little bit of fucking caution, then you're trying to hold back progress.

However, all non-tech related policy should be based on ancient traditions and biblical text with arbitrary rules and restrictions that only make sense and benefit the people enforcing the law.

What a stupid and convoluted way to express you just don't like evidence based policy or using critical thinking skills, and instead prefer to just navigate life by relying on the basic signals from your lizard brain. Feels good so keep moving towards, feels bad so run away, or feels scary so attack!

Such is the reality of the chosen elite, steering us towards greatness.

What's really "funny" (in a we're all doomed sort of way) is that while writing this all out, I realized the "chosen elite" controlling tech and policy actually perfectly embody the current problem with AI and bias.

Rather than relying on intelligence to analyze a situation in the present, and create the best and most appropriate response based on the information and evidence before them, they default to a set of pre-concieved rules written thousands of years ago with zero context to the current reality/environment and the problem at hand.

[–] Nomad@infosec.pub 7 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

I think most people tend to overlook the most obvious advantages and are overly focused on what is supposed to be and marketed as.

No need to think how to feed a thing into google to get a decent starting point for reading. No finding the correct terminology before finding the thing you are looking for. Just ask like you would ask a knowledgeable individual and you get an overview of what you wanted to ask in the first place.

Discuss a little to get the options and then start reading and researching the everliving shit out of them to confirm all the details.

[–] grabyourmotherskeys@lemmy.world 9 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Agreed.

When I was a kid we went to the library. If a card catalog didn't yield the book you needed, you asked the librarian. They often helped. No one sat around after the library wondering if the librarian was "truly intelligent".

These are tools. Tools slowly get better. Is a tool make life easier or your work better, you'll eventually use it.

Yes, there are woodworkers that eschew power tools but they are not typical. They have a niche market, and that's great, but it's a choice for the maker and user of their work.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] pastermil@sh.itjust.works 6 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Artificial Intelligent is supposed to be intelligent.

Calling LLMs intelligent is where it's wrong.

[–] Endmaker@ani.social 12 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

Artificial Intelligent is supposed to be intelligent.

For the record, AI is not supposed to be intelligent.

It just has to appear intelligent. It can be all smoke-and-mirrors, giving the impression that it's smart enough - provided it can perform the task at hand.

That's why it's termed artificial intelligence.

The subfield of Artificial General Intelligence is another story.

[–] nickhammes@lemmy.world 8 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

The field of artificial intelligence has also made incredible strides in the last decade, and the decade before that. The field of artificial general intelligence has been around for something like 70 years, and has made a really modest amount of progress in that time, on the scale of what they're trying to do.

[–] Endmaker@ani.social 6 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

The field of artificial general intelligence has been around for something like 70 years, and has made a really modest amount of progress in that time, on the scale of what they're trying to do.

I daresay it would stay this way until we figure out what intelligence is.

[–] Angelusz@lemmy.world 6 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

Super duper shortsighted article.

I mean, sure, some points are valid. But there's not just programmers involved, other professions such as psychologists and Philosophers and artists, doctors etc. too.

And I agree AGI probably won't emerge from binary systems. However... There's quantum computing on the rise. Latest theories of the mind and consciousness discuss how consciousness and our minds in general also appear to work with quantum states.

Finally, if biofeedback would be the deciding factor.. That can be simulated, modeled after a sample of humans.

The article is just doomsday hoo ha, unbalanced.

Show both sides of the coin...

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›