this post was submitted on 11 Feb 2025
99 points (97.1% liked)
Casual Conversation
2261 readers
315 users here now
Share a story, ask a question, or start a conversation about (almost) anything you desire. Maybe you'll make some friends in the process.
RULES (updated 01/22/25)
- Be respectful: no harassment, hate speech, bigotry, and/or trolling. To be concise, disrespect is defined by escalation.
- Encourage conversation in your OP. This means including heavily implicative subject matter when you can and also engaging in your thread when possible. You won't be punished for trying.
- Avoid controversial topics (politics or societal debates come to mind, though we are not saying not to talk about anything that resembles these). There's a guide in the protocol book offered as a mod model that can be used for that; it's vague until you realize it was made for things like the rule in question. At least four purple answers must apply to a "controversial" message for it to be allowed.
- Keep it clean and SFW: No illegal content or anything gross and inappropriate. A rule of thumb is if a recording of a conversation put on another platform would get someone a COPPA violation response, that exact exchange should be avoided when possible.
- No solicitation such as ads, promotional content, spam, surveys etc. The chart redirected to above applies to spam material as well, which is one of the reasons its wording is vague, as it applies to a few things. Again, a "spammy" message must be applicable to four purple answers before it's allowed.
- Respect privacy as well as truth: Don’t ask for or share any personal information or slander anyone. A rule of thumb is if something is enough info to go by that it "would be a copyright violation if the info was art" as another group put it, or that it alone can be used to narrow someone down to 150 physical humans (Dunbar's Number) or less, it's considered an excess breach of privacy. Slander is defined by intentional utilitarian misguidance at the expense (positive or negative) of a sentient entity. This often links back to or mixes with rule one, which implies, for example, that even something that is true can still amount to what slander is trying to achieve, and that will be looked down upon.
Casual conversation communities:
Related discussion-focused communities
- !actual_discussion@lemmy.ca
- !askmenover30@lemm.ee
- !dads@feddit.uk
- !letstalkaboutgames@feddit.uk
- !movies@lemm.ee
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
This is apples vs pears with 2 languages that make them sound similar.
Ai is a technical domain of computer science. All machine learning is AI here.
But Ai is just short for artificial intelligence and those are 2 normal words with their own meaning and can be used literally. Llms are artificial, they can so some clever things. But is it intelligent? There is lots of subjective room here.
Smart foto filters are fighting a very uphill battle to be considered intelligent.
This is different from AGI which is on par with human intelligence, in practice i don't believe many humans will consider something intelligent until it surpasses themselves but thats besides the point.
According to most dictionary definitions for "intelligence" the bar is quite low for a system to be considered "intelligent"
I am often very specific about the meaning of some words myself, however in this case i doubt a textbook definition will do.
One can write entire books on what intelligence is and still only scratch the surface.
Words like “reason” and “understanding” are massive on their own.
Same with something like conscious. We do not understand it well enough for any definition to fit.
When people dismiss Ai as not intelligent they are not using a dictionary metric of checkboxes to see if it is or isn't intelligent. They weigh it on their own subjective understanding of intelligence.
To give you a specific example.
I call them “ai” because i have the technical background to understand its field of Computer science but i don't consider llms like claude or o3 at all intelligent.
I do consider them smart, clever and even knowledged but i personally put the bar of intelligent reasoning at a more conscious awareness of its surroundings close to emergent desire for self preservation. An example (but not necessarily) would be demonstrating a continual emotional experience.
I think that a good definition for consciousness is the subjective experience of it feeling like something to be. It's the fact that there's qualia to existence. I don't see a reason for why we would need to solve the hard problem of consciousness in order to define a term we use to describe it. As far as I know we don't understand gravity either but everyone still understands that term.
I don't think real consciousness is required for my own standard of intelligence. I also consider consciousness without intelligence but agree they are often related. I mostly gave it as another example of something that we ourselves are not intelligent enough to have an absolute definition for.
Please dont get me started on gravity. Your poking an nest of autistic bees with that one. I have very strong feelings about it being labeled a fundamental force (which means it cant be explained as emergent from a more fundamental something) yet we all know the gravity “effect” as i have dubed it is caused by the curvature of spacetime.
“Spacetime” somehow not consider a fundamental force, but we have 2 types of radiation to both make the list.
Omfg you started it now.
Electromagnetism is emergent of quantum stuff. Quantum is not a fundamental force. Electromagnetism is. Aaaargh
Science is in shambles and a fucking joke (/s)
No, I don't think consciousness is necessary for intelligence either. I just couldn't help but comment on that because as a subject it's close to my heart.
Same <3