458
Large Language Models Will Never Be Intelligent, Expert Says
(futurism.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 30 Nov 2025
458 points (98.3% liked)
Fuck AI
8692 readers
1994 users here now
"We did it, Patrick! We made a technological breakthrough!"
A place for all those who loathe AI to discuss things, post articles, and ridicule the AI hype. Proud supporter of working people. And proud booer of SXSW 2024.
AI, in this case, refers to LLMs, GPT technology, and anything listed as "AI" meant to increase market valuations.
Rules:
- Relevant posts only.
- No bigotry.
- No misinformation.
- No NSFW/NSFL content without being labeled NSFW or being in an appropriately-labeled spoiler tag.
- This isn't a place to talk about the cons and (supposed) pros of AI for different use cases. This is /c/fuck_ai .
- Especially no AI advocacy.
- No AI-generated content. If you want to post examples of AI failing hillariously, there are other communities for that like !ArtificialIgnorance@lemmy.ca .
- Venting is part of the purpose of this community, but don't aim frustration or accusations at other users.
- These rules are a living document that may change in the future.
You can help the mod team by making your reports detailed.
Effective reports:
- "The third image is a well-known anti-semitic trope"
- "Claiming that 'agentic AI' can outperform humans at all jobs is misinformation"
Less effective reports:
- "Breaks rules"
- "Misinformation"
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Your exchange makes me think about the chinese room thought experiment.
The person inside the room has instructions and a dictonary they uses to translate chinese symbols into english words. They never leave the room and never interact with anyone. They just translate single words.
They don't understand chinese, but the output of the system (the room) gives the impression that there is thinking behind the process. If I remember correctly, it was an argument against the Turing test. The claim was that computers could be extremely efficient into constructing anwsers that seems to be backed by human consciousness/thinking.
I think you are right. IMHO the room actually does speak/understand Chinese, even of the robot/human in the room does not.
There are no neurons in your brain that "understand" English, yet you do. Intelligence is an emergent property. If you "zoom-in" enough everything is just laws of physics and those laws don't understand English or Chinese.
If we carry the thought experiment forward, the parking lot requires a human to put in energy to make the whole system knowledgeable. In order for knowledgeability or intelligence to emerge we still need a human involved in the process, whether it's a Chinese room or a parkinglot covered with shredded dictionaries or a chatbot productivity software.
We have not eliminated the human from the process, and until we do, we can not say that it is intelligent or knowledgeable.
Right, so the parking lot covered with shredded dictionaries needs a human mind or else its just a bunch of trash.
The human inside the Chinese room, or in the parking lot picking up and organizing the trash, or in a discussion with a chatbot is still critical to the overall intelligence/knowledgeability of the system. It's still needed for that spark and, without it, it's just trash.