this post was submitted on 08 Jun 2025
793 points (95.8% liked)

Technology

71155 readers
3066 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

LOOK MAA I AM ON FRONT PAGE

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Nanook@lemm.ee 227 points 1 day ago (24 children)

lol is this news? I mean we call it AI, but it’s just LLM and variants it doesn’t think.

[–] Clent@lemmy.dbzer0.com 19 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Proving it matters. Science is constantly proving any other thing that people believe is obvious because people have an uncanning ability to believe things that are false. Some people will believe things long after science has proven them false.

[–] Eatspancakes84@lemmy.world 2 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

I mean… “proving” is also just marketing speak. There is no clear definition of reasoning, so there’s also no way to prove or disprove that something/someone reasons.

[–] Clent@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 8 hours ago

Claiming it's just marketing fluff is indicates you do not know what you're talking about.

They published a research paper on it. You are free to publish your own paper disproving theirs.

At the moment, you sound like one of those "I did my own research" people except you didn't even bother doing your own research.

[–] MNByChoice@midwest.social 76 points 1 day ago (1 children)

The "Apple" part. CEOs only care what companies say.

[–] kadup@lemmy.world 50 points 1 day ago (4 children)

Apple is significantly behind and arrived late to the whole AI hype, so of course it's in their absolute best interest to keep showing how LLMs aren't special or amazingly revolutionary.

They're not wrong, but the motivation is also pretty clear.

[–] Venator@lemmy.nz 5 points 22 hours ago

Apple always arrives late to any new tech, doesn't mean they haven't been working on it behind the scenes for just as long though...

[–] homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world 29 points 1 day ago

“Late to the hype” is actually a good thing. Gen AI is a scam wrapped in idiocy wrapped in a joke. That Apple is slow to ape the idiocy of microsoft is just fine.

[–] MCasq_qsaCJ_234@lemmy.zip 11 points 1 day ago

They need to convince investors that this delay wasn't due to incompetence. The problem will only be somewhat effective as long as there isn't an innovation that makes AI more effective.

If that happens, Apple shareholders will, at best, ask the company to increase investment in that area or, at worst, to restructure the company, which could also mean a change in CEO.

[–] dubyakay@lemmy.ca 11 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Maybe they are so far behind because they jumped on the same train but then failed at achieving what they wanted based on the claims. And then they started digging around.

[–] Clent@lemmy.dbzer0.com 11 points 1 day ago

Yes, Apple haters can't admit nor understand it but Apple doesn't do pseudo-tech.

They may do silly things, they may love their 100% mark up but it's all real technology.

The AI pushers or today are akin to the pushers of paranormal phenomenon from a century ago. These pushers want us to believe, need us to believe it so they can get us addicted and extract value from our very existence.

[–] JohnEdwa@sopuli.xyz 5 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (3 children)

"It's part of the history of the field of artificial intelligence that every time somebody figured out how to make a computer do something—play good checkers, solve simple but relatively informal problems—there was a chorus of critics to say, 'that's not thinking'." -Pamela McCorduck´.
It's called the AI Effect.

As Larry Tesler puts it, "AI is whatever hasn't been done yet.".

[–] kadup@lemmy.world 17 points 1 day ago (2 children)

That entire paragraph is much better at supporting the precise opposite argument. Computers can beat Kasparov at chess, but they're clearly not thinking when making a move - even if we use the most open biological definitions for thinking.

[–] cyd@lemmy.world 5 points 22 hours ago (1 children)

By that metric, you can argue Kasparov isn't thinking during chess, either. A lot of human chess "thinking" is recalling memorized openings, evaluating positions many moves deep, and other tasks that map to what a chess engine does. Of course Kasparov is thinking, but then you have to conclude that the AI is thinking too. Thinking isn't a magic process, nor is it tightly coupled to human-like brain processes as we like to think.

[–] kadup@lemmy.world 2 points 13 hours ago (1 children)

By that metric, you can argue Kasparov isn’t thinking during chess

Kasparov's thinking fits pretty much all biological definitions of thinking. Which is the entire point.

[–] Llewellyn@lemm.ee 2 points 11 hours ago

Is thinking necessarily biologic?

[–] Grimy@lemmy.world 14 points 1 day ago (5 children)

No, it shows how certain people misunderstand the meaning of the word.

You have called npcs in video games "AI" for a decade, yet you were never implying they were somehow intelligent. The whole argument is strangely inconsistent.

[–] homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world 5 points 1 day ago

Strangely inconsistent + smoke & mirrors = profit!

[–] Clent@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Intellegence has a very clear definition.

It's requires the ability to acquire knowledge, understand knowledge and use knowledge.

No one has been able to create an system that can understand knowledge, therefor me none of it is artificial intelligence. Each generation is merely more and more complex knowledge models. Useful in many ways but never intelligent.

[–] Grimy@lemmy.world 2 points 14 hours ago (1 children)

Dog has a very clear definition, so when you call a sausage in a bun a "Hot Dog", you are actually a fool.

Smart has a very clear definition, so no, you do not have a "Smart Phone" in your pocket.

Also, that is not the definition of intelligence. But the crux of the issue is that you are making up a definition for AI that suits your needs.

[–] Clent@lemmy.dbzer0.com -1 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

Misconstruing how language works isn't an argument for what an existing and established word means.

I'm sure that argument made you feel super clever but it's nonsense.

I sourced by definition from authoritative sources. The fact that you didn't even bother to verify that or provide an alternative authoritative definition tells me all I need to know about the value in further discussion with you.

[–] Grimy@lemmy.world 1 points 5 hours ago* (last edited 5 hours ago)

"Artificial intelligence refers to computer systems that can perform complex tasks normally done by human-reasoning, decision making, creating, etc.

There is no single, simple definition of artificial intelligence because AI tools are capable of a wide range of tasks and outputs, but NASA follows the definition of AI found within EO 13960, which references Section 238(g) of the National Defense Authorization Act of 2019.

  • Any artificial system that performs tasks under varying and unpredictable circumstances without significant human oversight, or that can learn from experience and improve performance when exposed to data sets.
  • An artificial system developed in computer software, physical hardware, or other context that solves tasks requiring human-like perception, cognition, planning, learning, communication, or physical action.
  • An artificial system designed to think or act like a human, including cognitive architectures and neural networks.
  • A set of techniques, including machine learning that is designed to approximate a cognitive task.
  • An artificial system designed to act rationally, including an intelligent software agent or embodied robot that achieves goals using perception, planning, reasoning, learning, communicating, decision-making, and acting."

This is from NASA (emphasis mine). https://www.nasa.gov/what-is-artificial-intelligence/

The problem is that you are reading the word intelligence and thinking it means the system itself needs to be intelligent, when it only needs to be doing things that we would normally attribute to intelligence. Computer vision is AI, but a software that detects a car inside a picture and draws a box around it isn't intelligent. It is still considered AI and has been considered AI for the past three decades.

Now show me your blog post that told you that AI isnt AI because it isn't thinking.

[–] 8uurg@lemmy.world 4 points 17 hours ago

Wouldn't the algorithm that creates these models in the first place fit the bill? Given that it takes a bunch of text data, and manages to organize this in such a fashion that the resulting model can combine knowledge from pieces of text, I would argue so.

What is understanding knowledge anyways? Wouldn't humans not fit the bill either, given that for most of our knowledge we do not know why it is the way it is, or even had rules that were - in hindsight - incorrect?

If a model is more capable of solving a problem than an average human being, isn't it, in its own way, some form of intelligent? And, to take things to the utter extreme, wouldn't evolution itself be intelligent, given that it causes intelligent behavior to emerge, for example, viruses adapting to external threats? What about an (iterative) optimization algorithm that finds solutions that no human would be able to find?

Intellegence has a very clear definition.

I would disagree, it is probably one of the most hard to define things out there, which has changed greatly with time, and is core to the study of philosophy. Every time a being or thing fits a definition of intelligent, the definition often altered to exclude, as has been done many times.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] technocrit@lemmy.dbzer0.com 7 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (2 children)

I'm going to write a program to play tic-tac-toe. If y'all don't think it's "AI", then you're just haters. Nothing will ever be good enough for y'all. You want scientific evidence of intelligence?!?! I can't even define intelligence so take that! \s

Seriously tho. This person is arguing that a checkers program is "AI". It kinda demonstrates the loooong history of this grift.

[–] JohnEdwa@sopuli.xyz 14 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

It is. And has always been. "Artificial Intelligence" doesn't mean a feeling thinking robot person (that would fall under AGI or artificial conciousness), it's a vast field of research in computer science with many, many things under it.

[–] Endmaker@ani.social 4 points 1 day ago (2 children)

ITT: people who obviously did not study computer science or AI at at least an undergraduate level.

Y'all are too patient. I can't be bothered to spend the time to give people free lessons.

[–] antonim@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 1 day ago

Wow, I would deeply apologise on the behalf of all of us uneducated proles having opinions on stuff that we're bombarded with daily through the media.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] LandedGentry@lemmy.zip 5 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Yeah that’s exactly what I took from the above comment as well.

I have a pretty simple bar: until we’re debating the ethics of turning it off or otherwise giving it rights, it isn’t intelligent. No it’s not scientific, but it’s a hell of a lot more consistent than what all the AI evangelists espouse. And frankly if we’re talking about the ethics of how to treat something we consider intelligent, we have to go beyond pure scientific benchmarks anyway. It becomes a philosophy/ethics discussion.

Like crypto it has become a pseudo religion. Challenges to dogma and orthodoxy are shouted down, the non-believers are not welcome to critique it.

[–] vala@lemmy.world 4 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (3 children)

Yesterday I asked an LLM "how much energy is stored in a grand piano?" It responded with saying there is no energy stored in a grad piano because it doesn't have a battery.

Any reasoning human would have understood that question to be referring to the tension in the strings.

Another example is asking "does lime cause kidney stones?". It didn't assume I mean lime the mineral and went with lime the citrus fruit instead.

Once again a reasoning human would assume the question is about the mineral.

Ask these questions again in a slightly different way and you might get a correct answer, but it won't be because the LLM was thinking.

[–] postmateDumbass@lemmy.world 9 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Honestly, i thought about the chemical energy in the materials constructing the piano and what energy burning it would release.

[–] xthexder@l.sw0.com 6 points 1 day ago

The tension of the strings would actually be a pretty miniscule amount of energy too, since there's very little stretch to a piano wire, the force might be high, but the potential energy/work done to tension the wire is low (done by hand with a wrench).

Compared to burning a piece of wood, which would release orders of magnitude more energy.

[–] xthexder@l.sw0.com 8 points 1 day ago (2 children)

I'm not sure how you arrived at lime the mineral being a more likely question than lime the fruit. I'd expect someone asking about kidney stones would also be asking about foods that are commonly consumed.

This kind of just goes to show there's multiple ways something can be interpreted. Maybe a smart human would ask for clarification, but for sure AIs today will just happily spit out the first answer that comes up. LLMs are extremely "good" at making up answers to leading questions, even if it's completely false.

[–] Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world 2 points 13 hours ago

A well trained model should consider both types of lime. Failure is likely down to temperature and other model settings. This is not a measure of intelligence.

[–] JohnEdwa@sopuli.xyz 1 points 15 hours ago* (last edited 15 hours ago)

Making up answers is kinda their entire purpose. LMMs are fundamentally just a text generation algorithm, they are designed to produce text that looks like it could have been written by a human. Which they are amazing at, especially when you start taking into account how many paragraphs of instructions you can give them, and they tend to rather successfully follow.

The one thing they can't do is verify if what they are talking about is true as it's all just slapping words together using probabilities. If they could, they would stop being LLMs and start being AGIs.

[–] antonim@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 1 day ago

But 90% of "reasoning humans" would answer just the same. Your questions are based on some non-trivial knowledge of physics, chemistry and medicine that most people do not possess.

load more comments (21 replies)