1609 pts ยท February 15, 2015
Uhm, this is not entirely correct. As per the current scientific definition of AI by McCarthy the way on how you achieve an AI does not matter. You can absolutly write an algorithm, that someone can explain and can debug and still have an AI. An AI is defined by the problem it solves (the problem shall be historically associated with human intelligence) and not by the way it solves that. E.g. there are chess AIs that are also algorithms.
https://media2.giphy.com/media/v1.Y2lkPWE1NzM3M2U1MGxybmJkdXFuaTFyeGl1MXRreGExNmRqcTdqZnV0MWZnZWNtMDdvdyZlcD12MV9naWZzX3NlYXJjaCZjdD1n/A5MaPRI3Um4gw/200w.webp
https://media2.giphy.com/media/v1.Y2lkPWE1NzM3M2U1ZXAzeG53eDhqbHdxN3d6dWt1ZnZhdGZsZTZkYnV4aGl5cTFleDdjbCZlcD12MV9naWZzX3NlYXJjaCZjdD1n/3o7TKMBLdNJtXxonAY/200w.webp
Semi agree, the games have different strengths. Nier has way better story / world building / atmosphere. But Stellar Blade is much better in gameplay, the combat system in Stellar Blade is (to me) superior to Nier. I played Nier because of the story, I played Stellar Blade because of the gameplay.
I have already done so, I source the McCarthy definition, it is also the very first sentence opening the wikipedia article. Now you can cite scientific sources. But even if you do that I still would argue that your first post here is then at least misunderstanding. I then would argue that at the very least, to be scientific accurate, you should name the definition of AI you are using to exclude LLMs from it because at least today it is not the common one. That the definition might change is ok.
Yes, I brought that comparison up because it is relevant for the discussion? You are fighting against windmills, you are making up arguments, then you argue againust them but they have nothing to do with what I have said. Definitions changes, and what does that change anything in this context? The topic is not whether definitions changes, but it is about the definition of AI specifically. To argue against me, you have to source a scientific definition of AI, under which LLMs are not AIs..
Why are you now starting with insults? Is it really impossible to have one single conversation without behaving like a child? I give arguments and then you give arguments and this is then a discussion, why then is this childlike behaviour necessary? We can also disagree on topics without insulting each other..... Really man, this is what makes me weep for humanity if not even basic discussions are possible...
That is not really an answer to my point though... Obviously you can disagree with the definition, but given the definition above, the LLMs are absolutly AI. I think you have it backwards, you are saying LLMs ought to not be considered AI therefore the definition cannot be correct instead of starting with the definition and then check whether LLMs fit this or not.
But just to be clear: Machine Learning is by definition not AI and vice versa. It just happens nowadays that machine learning is very often used to implement an AI but you can absolutly create an AI without machine learning and you can do machine learning without creating an AI.
I don't really think AI need to be re defined, the definition never required any intelligence from the beginning (McCarthy definition of the 60s or so). This is just scientific theory vs colloquial theory all over again. AI is just a piece of software that solves problems which historically required intelligence. It does not make any statements about whether the software actually has intelligence or not.
Uh, you might be surprised to find out... it actually is ;) You can simply search for Protein folding AI and you will find some. Also, there are AIs working on cancer, AIs for earthquake predictions, for climate science etc etc etc
This I absolutly don't understand. If I have my AI model predicting cancer in its own model based on images that a company has bought, how is this helping fascists? How are AI models predicting earthquakes, doing climate calculations, doing protein folding, etc. etc. etc helping fascists?
I don't disagree on AI art, was also never my intention. My objection to the statement that as AI cannot have experience they can't create art is, in the context of AI, non sensical because these words are so far only meaningful in a human context. That being said, I am more on the side of art is in the eye of the beholder. E.g. not matter how much soul an artist puts in these abstract modern art pieces, I would still not consider them art myself ;)
entity from being able to create art. Then, whatever your definition of art is requires that it is created by humans. Which ia fine, but then then experiences per se are not necessary per se of the definition of art as I would argue that there are no humans without experiences (whatever these fuzzy definition in the end means)
No because you are already implying that whatever experience means requires consciousness. But you first have to actually show that before making the second step. We have only a very fuzzy definition of experience or they are directly related to actually being a human itself. Which again means it actually makes no sense to even apply the word to software or rocks for that matter. Which is kinda my point that using terms that are only defined in a human context means you are excluding any other..
I agree that "entire context" is maybe not appropiatly worded. Just replace it then with "creative intent", my point still stands and you have not argued against it so far. You take so much information that you process when looking at some art for granted and do not take into account what you already know and have experienced before looking at the art. And exactly that is my point: Art is in the eye of the beholder, and one person can experience a piece of art completely different then the next.
And I find it sad that you think art is only for the elite who have studied art history. I find your opinion rather cold and mechanical. I see art as these beatiful playground where human can experience emotions, and each piece of art can elicit completely different responses in different people. Art can elicit disgust, wonder, sadness, ... I find it sad that you see art as this rather technical transaction between creator and viewer and you have to understand the creator to define sth as art.
Man, it's an example. Just viewing the Mona Lisa doesn't give me magical insight that there was a conscious guy named Da Vinci who painted the Mona Lisa and had some intent behind it. I know this because I read books, or watch documentaries, etc, but not by looking at the Mona Lisa. You take the art piece and automatically assume that it includes magically the entire context in which it was created while ignoring that all of this context is transmitted to you over a completely different channel.
But to translate these into real world examples is trivial? You can take nature and view scenes as art. You can set up images generated randomly or non randomly by software and by humans and check whether human participants can identify which are human made and which is software made. There are already studies checking stuff like this so it's not a hypothetical or alternate reality. There is active research on this very topic, also in the context of AI.
I am not saying it is irrelevant nor am I saying that a creator doesn't have anything to say to me, nor that I am the sole source of information. I am just saying that a piece of art does not have some magical property that states the intent of a conscious creator. That part is imagined by the perceiver. If you look at Mona Lisa there is no magical text appearing telling you what the author meant or whether it was produced by a conscious creator unless you are in addition giving context.
Man, it's just an example. I use the monkeys because they are famously used for a very similar example in the context of writing books (google "Infinite monkey theorem") I thought the context was clear and that obviously you can equate books with other forms of art, but obviously not everyone knows about it, mistake on my part.
So what you are claiming now is that you are able to determine the intent / communication from the respective creator? So you are somehow able to distinguish the Mona Lisa produced by a trillion monkeys in a random way from the actual Mona Lisa? I think you are imagining things and you are not aware that you are imagining things.
No, my statement would be more akin to "We don't know whether software experience anything or whether it makes even sense to apply the word to software until we have a fundamental understanding of what "to experience" actually means for a human." I believe that your statement is in fact correct today, but I cannot really defend it aside from "Because my gut tells me so." and that's why I objected originally to use it as an argument why AI cannot create art. I think the argument itself is flawed.
The only part relevant for my point are the first two sentences of the first post of yours here. The rest is again about me thinking if software have experiences or not, which I don't. You are arguing here against open doors. If you don't know what experiences are or can't reduce it to certain electrical/chemical processes in the brain then it is therefore impossible at this time to deduce an equivalent process for softwares to determine whether software have experiences (or not).
I explicitly stated that I don't argue that AIs are having experiences ;) I am arguiing the statement above is contraditory as it was both stated that AIs are not having experiences and at the same time that humans don't know what experiences are. My point is just that these two statements are in conflict
Both of those lead to a form of culture. I think that the receiver part is simply imagining this communication no matter whether it actually exists or not. If e.g. the Mona Lisa was the output of a trillion monkey doing art to produce the Mona Lisa in some random way and no one told me, I would automatically just invent the intent/communication part of the sender. Humans are very adept in inventing/extrapolating missing information.
I think you stopped at the "understanding" part... After reading your other comments you are obviously a troll and just here to insult people. With the other guys here we had an interesting discussion, but you are just here to troll...
What are you talking about? What does your comment have to do with the topic?
That's my point. You argue that art is art because it is made by humans and that humans are special. That is fine. I personally think that one can even accidently create art, or that nature can exhibit art. I personally see your argument as a fallacy, but obviously you disagree. That is also fine.
How can you argue that AIs are far removed from having experiences, when in the same post you are saying that science cannot reduce experiences to mere chemicals in the brain ( which I understand as we don't know what experiences actually are). How do you then know that AIs are not having experiences. Maybe they have the digital equivalent of experiences? Just to be clear: I am not saying AIs are having experiences, I am just saying that I don't think your argument is valid.
Uhm, this is not entirely correct. As per the current scientific definition of AI by McCarthy the way on how you achieve an AI does not matter. You can absolutly write an algorithm, that someone can explain and can debug and still have an AI. An AI is defined by the problem it solves (the problem shall be historically associated with human intelligence) and not by the way it solves that. E.g. there are chess AIs that are also algorithms.
https://media2.giphy.com/media/v1.Y2lkPWE1NzM3M2U1MGxybmJkdXFuaTFyeGl1MXRreGExNmRqcTdqZnV0MWZnZWNtMDdvdyZlcD12MV9naWZzX3NlYXJjaCZjdD1n/A5MaPRI3Um4gw/200w.webp
https://media2.giphy.com/media/v1.Y2lkPWE1NzM3M2U1ZXAzeG53eDhqbHdxN3d6dWt1ZnZhdGZsZTZkYnV4aGl5cTFleDdjbCZlcD12MV9naWZzX3NlYXJjaCZjdD1n/3o7TKMBLdNJtXxonAY/200w.webp
Semi agree, the games have different strengths. Nier has way better story / world building / atmosphere. But Stellar Blade is much better in gameplay, the combat system in Stellar Blade is (to me) superior to Nier. I played Nier because of the story, I played Stellar Blade because of the gameplay.
I have already done so, I source the McCarthy definition, it is also the very first sentence opening the wikipedia article. Now you can cite scientific sources. But even if you do that I still would argue that your first post here is then at least misunderstanding. I then would argue that at the very least, to be scientific accurate, you should name the definition of AI you are using to exclude LLMs from it because at least today it is not the common one. That the definition might change is ok.
Yes, I brought that comparison up because it is relevant for the discussion? You are fighting against windmills, you are making up arguments, then you argue againust them but they have nothing to do with what I have said. Definitions changes, and what does that change anything in this context? The topic is not whether definitions changes, but it is about the definition of AI specifically. To argue against me, you have to source a scientific definition of AI, under which LLMs are not AIs..
Why are you now starting with insults? Is it really impossible to have one single conversation without behaving like a child? I give arguments and then you give arguments and this is then a discussion, why then is this childlike behaviour necessary? We can also disagree on topics without insulting each other..... Really man, this is what makes me weep for humanity if not even basic discussions are possible...
That is not really an answer to my point though... Obviously you can disagree with the definition, but given the definition above, the LLMs are absolutly AI. I think you have it backwards, you are saying LLMs ought to not be considered AI therefore the definition cannot be correct instead of starting with the definition and then check whether LLMs fit this or not.
But just to be clear: Machine Learning is by definition not AI and vice versa. It just happens nowadays that machine learning is very often used to implement an AI but you can absolutly create an AI without machine learning and you can do machine learning without creating an AI.
I don't really think AI need to be re defined, the definition never required any intelligence from the beginning (McCarthy definition of the 60s or so). This is just scientific theory vs colloquial theory all over again. AI is just a piece of software that solves problems which historically required intelligence. It does not make any statements about whether the software actually has intelligence or not.
Uh, you might be surprised to find out... it actually is ;) You can simply search for Protein folding AI and you will find some. Also, there are AIs working on cancer, AIs for earthquake predictions, for climate science etc etc etc
This I absolutly don't understand. If I have my AI model predicting cancer in its own model based on images that a company has bought, how is this helping fascists? How are AI models predicting earthquakes, doing climate calculations, doing protein folding, etc. etc. etc helping fascists?
I don't disagree on AI art, was also never my intention. My objection to the statement that as AI cannot have experience they can't create art is, in the context of AI, non sensical because these words are so far only meaningful in a human context. That being said, I am more on the side of art is in the eye of the beholder. E.g. not matter how much soul an artist puts in these abstract modern art pieces, I would still not consider them art myself ;)
entity from being able to create art. Then, whatever your definition of art is requires that it is created by humans. Which ia fine, but then then experiences per se are not necessary per se of the definition of art as I would argue that there are no humans without experiences (whatever these fuzzy definition in the end means)
No because you are already implying that whatever experience means requires consciousness. But you first have to actually show that before making the second step. We have only a very fuzzy definition of experience or they are directly related to actually being a human itself. Which again means it actually makes no sense to even apply the word to software or rocks for that matter. Which is kinda my point that using terms that are only defined in a human context means you are excluding any other..
I agree that "entire context" is maybe not appropiatly worded. Just replace it then with "creative intent", my point still stands and you have not argued against it so far. You take so much information that you process when looking at some art for granted and do not take into account what you already know and have experienced before looking at the art. And exactly that is my point: Art is in the eye of the beholder, and one person can experience a piece of art completely different then the next.
And I find it sad that you think art is only for the elite who have studied art history. I find your opinion rather cold and mechanical. I see art as these beatiful playground where human can experience emotions, and each piece of art can elicit completely different responses in different people. Art can elicit disgust, wonder, sadness, ...
I find it sad that you see art as this rather technical transaction between creator and viewer and you have to understand the creator to define sth as art.
Man, it's an example. Just viewing the Mona Lisa doesn't give me magical insight that there was a conscious guy named Da Vinci who painted the Mona Lisa and had some intent behind it. I know this because I read books, or watch documentaries, etc, but not by looking at the Mona Lisa. You take the art piece and automatically assume that it includes magically the entire context in which it was created while ignoring that all of this context is transmitted to you over a completely different channel.
But to translate these into real world examples is trivial? You can take nature and view scenes as art. You can set up images generated randomly or non randomly by software and by humans and check whether human participants can identify which are human made and which is software made. There are already studies checking stuff like this so it's not a hypothetical or alternate reality. There is active research on this very topic, also in the context of AI.
I am not saying it is irrelevant nor am I saying that a creator doesn't have anything to say to me, nor that I am the sole source of information. I am just saying that a piece of art does not have some magical property that states the intent of a conscious creator. That part is imagined by the perceiver. If you look at Mona Lisa there is no magical text appearing telling you what the author meant or whether it was produced by a conscious creator unless you are in addition giving context.
Man, it's just an example. I use the monkeys because they are famously used for a very similar example in the context of writing books (google "Infinite monkey theorem") I thought the context was clear and that obviously you can equate books with other forms of art, but obviously not everyone knows about it, mistake on my part.
So what you are claiming now is that you are able to determine the intent / communication from the respective creator? So you are somehow able to distinguish the Mona Lisa produced by a trillion monkeys in a random way from the actual Mona Lisa? I think you are imagining things and you are not aware that you are imagining things.
No, my statement would be more akin to "We don't know whether software experience anything or whether it makes even sense to apply the word to software until we have a fundamental understanding of what "to experience" actually means for a human." I believe that your statement is in fact correct today, but I cannot really defend it aside from "Because my gut tells me so." and that's why I objected originally to use it as an argument why AI cannot create art. I think the argument itself is flawed.
The only part relevant for my point are the first two sentences of the first post of yours here. The rest is again about me thinking if software have experiences or not, which I don't. You are arguing here against open doors.
If you don't know what experiences are or can't reduce it to certain electrical/chemical processes in the brain then it is therefore impossible at this time to deduce an equivalent process for softwares to determine whether software have experiences (or not).
I explicitly stated that I don't argue that AIs are having experiences ;) I am arguiing the statement above is contraditory as it was both stated that AIs are not having experiences and at the same time that humans don't know what experiences are. My point is just that these two statements are in conflict
Both of those lead to a form of culture. I think that the receiver part is simply imagining this communication no matter whether it actually exists or not. If e.g. the Mona Lisa was the output of a trillion monkey doing art to produce the Mona Lisa in some random way and no one told me, I would automatically just invent the intent/communication part of the sender. Humans are very adept in inventing/extrapolating missing information.
I think you stopped at the "understanding" part... After reading your other comments you are obviously a troll and just here to insult people. With the other guys here we had an interesting discussion, but you are just here to troll...
What are you talking about? What does your comment have to do with the topic?
That's my point. You argue that art is art because it is made by humans and that humans are special. That is fine. I personally think that one can even accidently create art, or that nature can exhibit art. I personally see your argument as a fallacy, but obviously you disagree. That is also fine.
How can you argue that AIs are far removed from having experiences, when in the same post you are saying that science cannot reduce experiences to mere chemicals in the brain ( which I understand as we don't know what experiences actually are). How do you then know that AIs are not having experiences. Maybe they have the digital equivalent of experiences? Just to be clear: I am not saying AIs are having experiences, I am just saying that I don't think your argument is valid.