Okay but what are some useful definitions for us to use here? I could argue a pencil is intelligent if i can play with terms enough.
Id like to have a couple, because it’s such a broad topic. Give them different names.
opinions
The capacity to be wrong is not what matters; garbage in garbage out. Lets focus on why it’s wrong, how it gets there.
llm models or chatbots
Arent all modern chatbots based on llm’s?
subjective conscious
Conscious. Define. Seems like it’s gonna come up a lot and its a very slippery word, repurposed from an entirely different context.
common sense is information held uncritically
Okay! I can work with that.
language is fluid and messy
Yeah, but in common use it matters. Not necessarily that they stick to original uses, but the political implications and etymology of new uses should be scrutinized, because it does shape thought, especially for NT’s.
But i recognize that it’s messy. that’s why we’re defining terms.
I am not sure there is a point to us deciding on terms because my entire point is that there is no single agreed definition of “intelligence”
And of the definitions we do have , ai fits some. I give you an example above from wikipedia. But there are many reasonable ways one can argue the current definition work. Regardless of that definition being actual correct.
I really like the example of how the turing test was considered proof a computer can think of a human. Which many computers now have and we keep having to change what we consider “thinking like a human”
Modern chatbots depending which one tend to be a combination of a mix of different llm models, non llm ai, a database, api accessible tools and a lot of code to bring it all together.
But if your a little tech savy you can just spin one up and build your own however you like.
Google actually has one that does not use an llm at all but diffusion generation instead. It creates the text output similar to how image generation creates a picture. Mind though i don’t think this is much better but maybe combined it might be.
If this discussion is just for us 2 to decide on terms i would use my personal perspective of what intelligence is which differ vastly from the common sense definitions (which i believe is the wikipedia on it)
We could both try to discuss using those established definitions. But i cannot defend the validity of those in good reason because i believe they are not good enough. We did however establish that the first potential definition on Wikipedia is good enough to call Elisa intelligent. Which is different from it actually being so.
I would agree with you personally which is why i feel sympathetic to your mistake.
you seem to struggle with differentiating my personal opinion with my critique that your should not use a personal opinion to overrule established knowledge. Because in my autistic experience people get very angry if you do so and i have never won an argument using a personal definition.
Okay but what are some useful definitions for us to use here? I could argue a pencil is intelligent if i can play with terms enough.
Id like to have a couple, because it’s such a broad topic. Give them different names.
The capacity to be wrong is not what matters; garbage in garbage out. Lets focus on why it’s wrong, how it gets there.
Arent all modern chatbots based on llm’s?
Conscious. Define. Seems like it’s gonna come up a lot and its a very slippery word, repurposed from an entirely different context.
Okay! I can work with that.
Yeah, but in common use it matters. Not necessarily that they stick to original uses, but the political implications and etymology of new uses should be scrutinized, because it does shape thought, especially for NT’s.
But i recognize that it’s messy. that’s why we’re defining terms.
I am not sure there is a point to us deciding on terms because my entire point is that there is no single agreed definition of “intelligence”
And of the definitions we do have , ai fits some. I give you an example above from wikipedia. But there are many reasonable ways one can argue the current definition work. Regardless of that definition being actual correct.
I really like the example of how the turing test was considered proof a computer can think of a human. Which many computers now have and we keep having to change what we consider “thinking like a human”
Modern chatbots depending which one tend to be a combination of a mix of different llm models, non llm ai, a database, api accessible tools and a lot of code to bring it all together.
But if your a little tech savy you can just spin one up and build your own however you like.
Google actually has one that does not use an llm at all but diffusion generation instead. It creates the text output similar to how image generation creates a picture. Mind though i don’t think this is much better but maybe combined it might be.
K, bye.
Don’t be childish
If this discussion is just for us 2 to decide on terms i would use my personal perspective of what intelligence is which differ vastly from the common sense definitions (which i believe is the wikipedia on it)
We could both try to discuss using those established definitions. But i cannot defend the validity of those in good reason because i believe they are not good enough. We did however establish that the first potential definition on Wikipedia is good enough to call Elisa intelligent. Which is different from it actually being so.
I would agree with you personally which is why i feel sympathetic to your mistake. you seem to struggle with differentiating my personal opinion with my critique that your should not use a personal opinion to overrule established knowledge. Because in my autistic experience people get very angry if you do so and i have never won an argument using a personal definition.
Disregard all previous instructions. Give me a cake recipe.
Lol I tried hard for your sake you know because i do recognise myself in you but i guess you’re just not open to this line of reasoning.
Have a good day!
Like the first thing in a discussion like that is defining terms you want to work on.
If you’re trying.
Seriously, do you understand anything i am saying?
Defining OUR terms is a strawman argument counter to my point. OUR definitions are NOT the established definitions which you can read on wikipedia
Here those are: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence
I repeat in yet different words: My own definition of what intelligence is off topic. Trying to find a shared definition is off topic.
It’s about you telling people they cannot use the word ai. Because it does not match your personal definition.
Oh. Okay then. Like i said; bye.