At some point in the mid-late 1990s, I recall having a (technically-inclined) friend who dialed up to a BBS and spent a considerable amount of time pinging and then chatting with Lisa, the “sysadmin’s sister”. When I heard about it, I spent quite some time arguing with him that Lisa was a bot. He was pretty convinced that she was human.
Honestly, I welcome this future.
I’d rather discuss with bots at this point than rubes.
The batshit insane part of that is they could just make easy canned answers for thank yous, but nope…IT’S THE USER’S FAULT!
One would think if they’re as fucking smart as they believe they are they could figger a way around it, eh??? 🤣
I wasn’t aware the generation of CEOs and politicians was called “Gen Z”.
The article targets its study on Gen Z but… yeah, the elderly aren’t exactly winners here, either.
We have to make the biggest return on our investments, fr fr
Its a friend the way the nice waitress is a friend when you go eat out.
Lots of people lack critical thinking skills
This is an angle I’ve never considered before, with regards to a future dystopia with a corrupt AI running the show. AI might never advance beyond what it is in 2025, but because people believe it’s a supergodbrain, we start putting way too much faith in its flawed output, and it’s our own credulity that dismantles civilisation rather than a runaway LLM with designs of its own. Misinformation unwittingly codified and sanctified by ourselves via ChatGeppetto.
The call is coming from inside the
housemechanical Turk!I mean, it’s like none of you people ever consider how often humans are wrong when criticizing AI.
How often have you looked for information from humans and have been fed falsehoods as though they were true? It happens so much we’ve just gotten used to filtering out the vast majority of human responses because most of them are incorrect or unrelated to the subject.
That’s the intended effect. People with real power think this way: “where it does work, it’ll work and not bother us with too much initiative and change, and where it doesn’t work, we know exactly what to do, so everything is covered”. Checks and balances and feedbacks and overrides and fallbacks be damned.
Humans are apes. When an ape gets to rule an empire, it remains an ape and the power kills its ability to judge.
They call it hallucinations like it’s a cute brain fart, and “Agentic” means they’re using the output of one to be the input of another, which has access to things and can make decisions and actually fuck things up. It’s a complete fucking shit show. But humans are expensive so replacing them makes line go up.
Why are you booing them? They’re right.
to be honest they probably wish it was conscious because it has more of a conscience than conservatives and capitalists
I think an alarming number of Gen Z internet folks find it funny to skew the results of anonymous surveys.
Yeah, what is it with GenZ? Millenials would never skew the results of anonymous surveys
Right? Just insane to think that Millenials would do that. Now let me read through this list of Time Magazines top 100 most influential people of 2009.
Those lovable little simpletons.
Are we positive that they’re conscious? I just think we should run some tests.
Good question. Over the years, I’ve read a number of arguments about consciousness, or more precisely against machine consciousness. One thing that’s striking is that the authors never apply the same logic to themselves or humans in general. It’s like they completely lack self-awareness. If I took the whole “p-zombie” idea seriously, I’d look for such p-zombies. And these philosophers would be my first candidates.
My comment was in jest, but there is a reasonable argument that biological organisms are also predictive input/output machines. It’s especially evident in simple organisms, like an amoeba, where some physical or chemical stimulus in the environment triggers a mostly predictable response.
The argument that human consciousness is fundamentally different - not just that it’s more complex but that at some point the physical determinism of electrical and chemical impulses gives way to an authority that overrides that physical basis, enabling free thought or free will - remains scientifically unsubstantiated. We know of no mechanism by which that could occur.
And the philosophical arguments aren’t much better - I’ve never seen a theory of dualism articulated in a way that doesn’t invoke ghosts or magic.
Irony.
Why are we so quick to assume machines cannot achieve consciousness?
Unless you can point to me the existence of a spirit or soul, there’s nothing that makes our consciousness unique from what computers are capable of accomplishing.
This is not claiming machines cannot be conscious ever. This is claiming machines aren’t conscious right now.
LLMs are like databases with a huge list of distances allowing you to find the “shortest” (aka most likely) distance to the next word. It’s literally little more than that.
One day true AI might exist. One day perhaps… But not today.
I don’t doubt the possibility but current AI tech, no.
It’s barely even AI. The amount of faith people have in these glorified search engines and image generators Lmao
It’s literally peaks and valleys of probability based on linguistic rules. That’s it. It is what’s referred to as a “Chinese room” in thought experiments.
I don’t have a leg to stand on calling anything “barely AI” given what us gamedevs call AI. Like a 1d affine transformation playing pong.
It’s beating your ass, there, isn’t that intelligent enough for you?
A calculator can multiply 2887618 * 99289192 faster than you ever could. Does that make a calculator intelligent?
It’s not an agent with its own goals so in the gamedev definition, no. By calculator standards, also not. But just as a washing machine with sufficient smarts is called intelligent, so it’s, in principle, possible to call a calculator intelligent if it’s smart enough. WolframAlpha certainly qualifies. And not just the newfangled LLM-enabled stuff I used Mathematica back in the early 00s and it blew me the fuck away. That thing is certainly better at finding closed forms than me.
deleted by creator
Their consciousness is arguable to begin with
Everyone’s is, fellow p-zombie
“Hohohoho these young people are so dumb” Repeating exactly what we all collectively hate about boomers and x
Honestly, responses like yours are more insufferable than the people you’re critiquing.
Would you like to elaborate or just lob an insult and leave
Young people are always ignorant, relatively. They haven’t been around long enough to learn much, after all. However, the quality of education has been empirically declining over many decades, and mobile devices are extemely efficient accelerants of brain rot.
Young people thinking their Ai waifu is real
Boomers thinking America was great and not just racist and imperialist
Gen X being really entitled because they were raised by Boomers
Millennials being the best at everything
I agree 100%.
You can not generalise a whole group on a few indiviuals
Edit: Younge people includes gen Z and alpha and now Beta too. Just daying
Yeah there’s a couple of millennial shitheads but all in all, and especially in comparison, we’re the goat. Not trying to put anyone down or such just stating facts.
We have middle sibling energy at best
In fairness, the word “conscious” has a range of meanings. For some, it is synonymous with certain religious ideas. They would be alarmed by the “heresy”. For others, it is synonymous to claiming that some entity is entitled to the same fundamental rights as a human being. Those would be quite alarmed by the social implications. Few people use the term in a strictly empiricist sense.
I tried to explain a directory tree to one of them (a supposedly technical resource) for twenty minutes and failed. They’re idiots. They were ruined by baby tech like iPhones, iPads, and now AI.
Anyone can understand a directory tree. Not everyone is smart enough to explain it.
They were designing functionality that contained directory trees and didn’t understand directory trees. How is it my responsibility that this person is not qualified to do their own job?
If they designed a directory tree without knowing what a directory tree is, it sounds like they know what a directory tree is, they just don’t know the word, and you can’t explain the word properly.
They didn’t “design a directory tree” either. They were designing screens for a thing that sits on top of a directory tree, and they didn’t understand the underlying concept.
It was likely because they’re used to the abstraction that iPhones and iPads provide, where the underlying directory structures are largely hidden from users.
I’m assuming part of it is because you’re a bad teacher as well.
Just going off of my life experience, I notice the vast majority of people are bad at teaching and then blame the pupil.
I’m not a teacher. I thought I was in a design meeting not teaching remedial computers to someone who is supposed to be working in the industry.
Yeah, but you were still in a teaching position.
You probably did a bad job because you’re not skilled in teaching. That’s what I meant by saying you’re a bad teacher.
I could’ve said you’re “bad at teaching” and that may have made things clearer for you, my mistake.
Yeah, but you were still in a teaching position.
No, I was in a meeting with a supposedly technical person.
I’ve been in the industry for a while, and I’ve even mentored people. These gaps in basic computer knowledge are new and they’re also not my problem. I was not this person’s mentor or supposed to be teaching them anything.
They could’ve been exceptionally inept, and even if they were, I’m still going to stick with my initial conclusion that you’re bad at teaching.
It’s okay, most people are and you don’t have to be ashamed of it. Everyone won’t be on your side when you say it’s someone else’s fault that they couldn’t learn from you effectively.
If I knew I was teaching remedial computers that day, I would’ve come with a lesson plan.
I’m going to stick with my initial conclusion that you love to blame the “teacher” even when they aren’t in any way a teacher.
deleted by creator
Looks like the androids won in real life.
Not sure what’s alarming about that. It’s a bit early to worry about an AI Dred Scott, no?
It’s alarming people are so gullible that a glorified autocorrect can fool them into thinking it’s sapient
“how dare you insult my robot waifu?!”
Is it still passing the Turing test if you don’t think either one is human?