I think a thread on this topic will be interesting. My own position is that AI is intelligent, and that’s for a very simple reason: it can do things that require intelligence. That sounds circular, and in one sense it is. In another sense it isn’t. It’s a way of saying that we don’t have to examine the internal workings of a system to decide that it’s intelligent. Behavior alone is sufficient to make that determination. Intelligence is as intelligence does.
You might ask how I can judge intelligence in a system if I haven’t defined what intelligence actually is. My answer is that we already judge intelligence in humans and animals without a precise definition, so why should it be any different for machines? There are lots of concepts for which we don’t have precise definitions, yet we’re able to discuss them coherently. They’re the “I know it when I see it” concepts. I regard intelligence as one of those. The boundaries might be fuzzy, but we’re able to confidently say that some activities require intelligence (inventing the calculus) and others don’t (breathing).
I know that some readers will disagree with my functionalist view of intelligence, and that’s good. It should make for an interesting discussion.
Here you disagree with keiths (not that consistency matters on your side – when rationality is thrown out, nothing really matters). Earlier keiths has stated that neural networks equals brain equals mind equals reasoning equals intelligence. At the same time, according to keiths, there are no emotions in AI – emotions in AI are faked because consistency does not matter!
When you say AI, I know I can assume LLM because you have never made the distinction clear in your posts, much less why the distinction would be relevant. Anyway, if you talk about modern AI, you necessarily talk about LLM. What else would you be talking about except ChatGPT, Grok and Claude, which are the *only* things keiths talks about?
I know about ancient AI, LISP development and chess engines. You have never engaged with these points that I brought up. You have had nothing to say about them, I am the only one who keeps bringing them up as examples. This fully justifies my opinion that everybody else here is ignorant about the concepts, the terminology, the history, the goals and the inner workings of AI machinery, even on such basic terms as software as such. In fact, keiths has explicitly said that my experience with LISP development is irrelevant when it in fact is quite central to the topic of AI. He is ignorant, you are with him, so you have no excuse.
Too bad that you, like keiths, cannot bring yourself to the acceptance of some simple obvious basic facts like AI is software. No matter how professionally accomplished you may be, this disqualifies you from any rational discussion on the topic, just like AI CEOs have disqualified themselves by their marketspeak lies and corporate colonianism.
No. AI can simulate. It never does anything on its own. You prompt it, then it will start churning, just like your smartphone never does anything, unless you turn it on and then go to FB to give it a scroll and punch likes.
You remain at square zero. You have given zero thought to how AI functions.
Admittedly, modern AI has amazing powers: It makes people think it’s safe to stop thinking (at CEO level, it has also done away with the last vestiges of morality). Just like the double slit experiment in quantum mechanics made many people think that the law of excluded middle no longer applies, modern AI has put a stop to applying any basics of rational analysis altogether, basics such as define your terms first before mouthing off on anything grander.
petrushka:
The form
is about as standard as English gets. What do you see as the problem? “Intelligent” is an adjective that I’m applying to AI.
When I say that AI is intelligent, I mean it straightforwardly and quite literally. Modern AIs, humans, and dogs are intelligent. Rocks, doorknobs, and dandruff flakes are not. Qualifiers aren’t needed in either case.
What do you regard “AI is intelligent” as being shorthand for?
I’m not seeing the connection. If we substitute ‘humans’ for ‘AI’ in that sentence, doesn’t it remain true, in your view?
No I don’t. You might try reading what I wrote, rather than trying to tell me what I think. This might solve quite a few of your problems.
No, you can’t. I was talking about consciousness, not LLMs. Living organisms pretty clearly demonstrate consciousness. Can any conceivable future software and/or hardware architecture duplicate this? Do we need a more concretely operational definition of consciousness before we can tell?
You seem devout in your belief that this knowledge qualifies you to ignore and dismiss the self-evident. You remind me of the military denier who can look you in the eye and deny that you’re even there. I sense that keiths becomes frustrated that presenting the obvious and self-evident to you, over and over, never penetrates at all.
Your confident, impervious ignorance justifies our opinion that you are an idiot.
And, apparently, those who have created, written, trained, designed, and built AI share this condition. They really ought to think about what they’ve done, right? Maybe, with some effort, they can learn how AI functions, right?
I suggest that “I know about LISP so you are ignorant” isn’t a very good definition of intelligence. Fortunately, the real world moves along without you.
Erik, to Flint:
Where are you getting that? I’ve said nothing of the sort.
What’s inconsistent about AI faking emotions? LLMs are literally instructed to do so in their system prompts. Claude’s system prompt leaked a while ago and it includes bits like this:
Note the third-person references. The LLM is being instructed to play the role of ‘Claude’, a helpful AI assistant who has a certain personality and exhibits certain emotions. Actors fake emotions when they perform in a play, and the LLM does the same when it is playing the role of Claude. It can fake emotions, but it can’t fake intelligence.
Yes, those are the only things I talk about except for all of the others, such as AIs that learn to play video games and AIs that can drive cars.
We would happily engage you on those points if you would make an argument based on them that led to the conclusion that modern AIs aren’t intelligent. I did engage you regarding the fact that AIs that aren’t specialized for chess sometimes get confused about the rules. My response was that humans can get confused about the rules too, but we don’t therefore regard them as unintelligent. Dogs and octopuses can’t learn the rules of chess at all, but that’s no reason to deny their intelligence.
Lol. That is exactly what Flint was referring to when he wrote “Too bad you can’t conceive of how you must look to me or keiths.”
Here’s what I actually wrote:
The qualifier is pretty hard to miss. Will you ever get around to telling us why those things are only simulated when done by AI? Your claim depends on it, I’ve been asking you for months, and you still haven’t delivered.
keiths to Erik, in October:
Lol.
LLMs aren’t the only form of AI, as we keep reminding you. In any case LLMs aren’t architecturally restricted to responding to prompts. It’s a design choice, because AI companies don’t want to spend resources on work that humans haven’t requested. They’re already operating at a loss and they don’t want to throw more money away.
Further, would you seriously argue that a task requiring intelligence no longer requires intelligence if an AI is prompted to do it? If a customer asks a taxi driver to take them from the intersection of Capitol and McKee to the Safeway on Snell, does the driver no longer require intelligence to make the trip, since they had to be asked?
Dude, could you finally buckle down and present an actual argument for why AI story-writing is only simulated story-writing and AI driving is only simulated driving? Why AI mathematical proofs are fake proofs and quantum mechanics done by AI is only fake quantum mechanics?
“It’s done by a machine, therefore it’s only simulated” won’t fly. If AI story-writing is only simulated, why is it able to produce real stories? Why are self-driving cars able to get from A to B if their driving is only simulated? Why does simulated mathematical reasoning produce real proofs? Do backhoes only simulate digging, and do washing machines only simulate washing clothes? If so, why do real ditches get dug and real clothes get clean?
Do you find anything wrong with the phrase, intelligence is as intelligence does?
If you have a better operational definition, please post it.
My problem is thingifying intelligence.
Penrose also has problems with the terminology. His problem is that the word intelligence has baggage, in the form of association with consciousness.
If you are arguing about it, by definition, you are not communicating.
petrushka:
No, and in fact I used that exact phrase in the OP:
If X requires intelligence, and AI can do X, then AI is intelligent. Erik and I agree that story-writing, driving, quantum mechanics, and mathematical reasoning all require intelligence. AI can do all of those things. Therefore, I conclude that AI is intelligent.
Since Erik agrees that those activities require intelligence, his only recourse, if he wants to continue denying AI’s intelligence, is to claim that in reality, AI can’t do any of those things (plus a zillion others that we haven’t discussed). When AI writes a story, it isn’t really writing a story, according to Erik. Ditto for the others. AI is only simulating those activities despite the fact that the results are very real: real stories, real transportation, real physics, real proofs.
I’m still waiting for him to explain why X counts as real when a human does it but is only simulated when a machine does it. I think the honest answer is that he considers it simulated for no other reason than that a machine is doing it, in which case his logic looks like this:
1. Humans can do X.
2. Machines, by definition, can only simulate X.
3. Real X requires intelligence; simulated X doesn’t.
4. Therefore humans are intelligent and AI isn’t, even if the results are identical.
That reduces to:
1. Assume AI isn’t intelligent.
2. Conclude that AI isn’t intelligent.
We already know that Erik is good at assuming his conclusions, so we learn nothing from his argument. We certainly can’t conclude that AI isn’t intelligent unless we share his tendentious assumption.
Erik needs something other than “it’s simulated if a machine is doing it”. He’s been casting about for an alternative, but he hasn’t come up with one.
petrushka:
“Intelligence” is an abstract noun, as are “reluctance”, “disarray”, “exactitude”, “nepotism”, and “archeology”. Do you have a problem with the last five? If not, what is it about “intelligence” that seems problematic to you?
The problem is that you did not say anything of substance, just like keiths all these years. If you have any expertise, show it. You have shown nothing but wilful ignorance of the simplest basics every step of the way.
Self-evident such as that AI is software? Who is ignoring and dismissing it? You are.
Expertise is good. Expertise with ulterior motives is devastatingly dangerous. Lucky for you, you are not dangerous. You’re just gullible, easily duped by marketspeak and your own unexamined premises. You just spout irrelevant nonsense without any informational content or purpose behind it.
As has been amply demonstrated, makers of AI lie their heads off. An example that you have been ignoring: AI training involves humans sorting, assorting and re-assorting the training data to keep bringing LLM back from its biases. Have you acknowledged this fact somewhere? keiths keeps dismissing it, thus proving that he little cares about examining the actual AI he is interacting with. He enjoys his own imaginary version of it that “does” things on its own and has true and real intelligence while only having fake feelings. For basic consistency, he must assume that either both the intelligence and feelings are fake or both are real. He cannot cherry-pick. But he’s an idiot who never even attempted rational analysis and you idiotically condone his idiocy.
On a more constructive note, I am looking forward to keiths’ promised upcoming post on the article “The Abstraction Fallacy: Why AI can simulate but not instantiate consciousness” by Alexander Lerchner. As is instantly evident from the title, the article is entirely on my side, the concept of simulation is central to it. The article interacts explicitly with David Chalmers’ article “Could a Large Language Model be Conscious?” where Chalmers allows for the possibility of a conscious AI, but Chalmers’ article is not on your side either, because Chalmers immediately raises another point that I have been highlighting: If AI is conscious, intelligent and aware, then it should deserve human rights or something like it, i.e. ethical issues arise – but you are ignoring it because you are a gullible doofus on the topic who makes no effort to think anything through. Strictly speaking, you do not have a side in this debate because you’re at square zero – zero definitions, no conceptual framework, thus no ground for analysis and no consideration of the implications. It’s really an amazing achievement on keiths’ part to yap on for years without adding a single iota of knowledge to the discussion.
Roughly speaking, there are two main schools of thought represented in the discussion about AI intelligence/consciousness. One school of thought is the Turing Test: If it looks convincingly intelligent enough to dupe some reasonably smart people, then we must admit that it is intelligent.
Another school of thought is the Chinese Room: May very much look like it, but there are too many hidden variables to tell for sure.
I’ve always been of a third school of thought: It’s goddamn software. There’s nothing hidden about software. We know very well how software functions, what it can and cannot do. Lerchner’s article models out this approach briefly, so it would be interesting to see how keiths interacts with it. To avoid disappointment, I keep my expectations very low – keiths cannot even begin to grasp the article.
Erik, to Flint:
Why? Where’s the contradiction in asserting that the intelligence is real while the emotions are fake? If you can’t find a contradiction, why claim that I’m being inconsistent?
The title doesn’t even mention intelligence. It’s about the simulation of consciousness, not of intelligence. Regarding the latter, I’m still waiting to hear you explain how AIs manage to produce real stories if they only simulate writing, how they can really get cars from Terre Haute to Champaign if they only simulate driving, how they really pass second year QM exams with flying colors if they only simulate quantum mechanics, and how they produce real mathematical proofs if they only simulate mathematical reasoning.
Your entire position rests on being able to explain that. I don’t think you can, because if you could, you would have done so by now.
If I say a person is reluctant, I am making an assertion about an inner state that is not observable.
Casual speech is okay when it is idle chitchat, but can become problematic when challenged.
petrushka:
True, and that reinforces a point I’ve been making to Erik. Reluctance can be inferred from behavior but the inference might be mistaken. We could be misinterpreting the behavior or the person might be faking reluctance for some reason. Contrast that with intelligence, which cannot be faked (at least to a non-naive audience).
Suppose Gwendolyn seems reluctant to take the quantum mechanics exam. Reluctance is a feeling and isn’t directly observable. She may in fact be looking forward to the test but feigning reluctance in order not to seem overeager. We can’t be sure. But when the professor looks at her paper and gives her a score of 100, we know that she’s intelligent. Reluctance can be faked, but intelligence cannot.
There’s nothing idle or unserious about my claim that AI is intelligent. I would happily make that assertion in an academic paper or in a formal presentation, because I’m judging AI based on performance and intelligence can’t be faked. Likewise, I wouldn’t hesitate to claim that Einstein was intelligent based on his scientific achievements and I’d be surprised if anyone objected.
Didn’t we agree on the maxim “Intelligence is as intelligence does”? You don’t need to observe someone’s mental state directly in order to decide that they’re intelligent. As with people, so with AI.
Erik:
AI is software that implements artificial neural networks built using artificial neurons. Brains are biological neural networks built with biological neurons. To borrow your phrasing, it’s just goddamn neurons. We understand how neurons work, both artificial and biological, but we don’t in most cases understand how neural networks do what they do.
Present a set of weights to the most brilliant AI researcher you can find, along with a diagram of the network and a description of the activation functions. Ask them whether the network will be good at distinguishing between male and female faces. They’ll have no idea. The only way to find out is to test the network on actual faces.
The appropriate reaction to an AI’s neural network shouldn’t be “It’s just goddamn software”. It should be “Goddamn, that’s complicated.” Large complex systems can behave in ways that are unanticipated and unpredictable, even with a perfect understanding of how the components function individually.
If we go through your post removing every gratuitous insult and false accusation, we find only one thing of substance, which is that you have so thoroughly confused intelligence with consciousness that you can’t tell the difference. Keiths has been telling you ad nauseum that all his examples, from driving cars to writing stories to producing mathematical proofs, require ONLY intelligence. None of them require consciousness.
Keiths and I agree that AI is intelligent but NOT conscious. That it demonstrates actual intelligence, but only simulates consciousness. There is some debate as to whether software can ever BE conscious no matter how sophisticated. But intelligence? That’s already self-evident to anyone capable of distinguishing between intelligence and consciousness.
Hence the old aphorism that computers are dumber than people but smarter than programmers.
Pope Leo Warns of Risks From A.I. in 42,300-Word Encyclical
The document marks a powerful foray by the leader of the Roman Catholic Church into the debate about the misuse or overuse of artificial intelligence.
‘So much worse than I even thought’: Utah’s ‘hyperscale’ data center could create massive heat island near Great Salt Lake
This thing is insanely huge. 40,000 acres for the entire project, roughly equivalent to an 8 mile by 8 mile square. The data center cluster itself will occupy 10,000 acres, or the equivalent of a 4 mile by 4 mile square. Power consumption will be 9 gigawatts, more than twice the current total power usage of the state of Utah. The professor quoted in the headline estimates that it will raise local temperatures by 5 degrees during the day and up to 28 degrees at night.
Harvard Graduation Speaker Unloads on AI in Profanity-Loaded Tirade, Prompting Cheers From Students: “I’m Here to Tell You the Mission of Your Generation Is to Destroy AI”
AI ignores religion when you need it most — and takes sides when you ask about switching
I for one will gladly become Christian again if Claude advises me to.
There is something called a theory of mind. Seems like as synonym for empathy.
My cat is not particularly intelligent, even by cat standards. But I am convinced she is conscious. This is a rabbit hole, so to speak. We place enormous weight on the unprovable belief that other entities are conscious.
I have a daughter and daughter in law in professions that will be altered by AI.
Teaching and law.
As a lightweight programmer, I just used AI browsers to complete a website,
I’ve dabbled in HTML for decades, but everything is done with CSS now. I would not have gotten far without help from browsers that understand informally worded questions.
None of the proffered code snippets actually worked, but they taught me the syntax.
I tried thirty versions of fading slide shows before finding one that allowed both text and images, and whose code wasn’t hideous.
I think many professions will change, but not be eliminated.
Sure, all this flies for someone who has no clue about what intelligence, consciousness and feelings are, never defined any of them, yet assumes it’s all kind of self-evident and requires no thought and no proof. Zero rational analysis and zero facts.
Why would the intelligence in AI be real and consciousness simulated when AI literally spells out *artificial* intelligence, i.e. the makers tell it to your face that the intelligence is simulated? Do you have functional illiteracy? You were an expert in what again?
Your use of “artificial” reminds me of the artificial snake in Blade Runner.
Or more nearly, the “fake” designer purses made in the same Chinese factory as the ones that go to Italy and get stamped with a designer logo.
Artificial means man made. It does not, of necessity, mean fundamentally different.