Yeah, that’s what I kinda guessed. You’re just assuming they don’t have internality based on vibes. Your beliefs aren’t falsifiable, they can’t be empirically tested. This is religion, not science.
The problem is people think llm AI means it’s thinking, when it’s obviously not
I don’t think it’s obvious. I think it’s dogmatic. You’ve got your religious views on AI, and you’re telling other people they’re the obvious truth, but you have no evidence to back them up, it’s just vibes.
I’m a skeptic, My position is caution. I think we should advance our science to the point where we have empirical answers to these questions before we use AI for labour. I think it’s reckless and irresponsible to use a technology when we don’t understand its ethical consequences.
Yeah, that’s what I kinda guessed. You’re just assuming they don’t have internality based on vibes. Your beliefs aren’t falsifiable, they can’t be empirically tested. This is religion, not science.
No one can test it. You’re also calling good science “religion”.
I don’t think it’s obvious. I think it’s dogmatic. You’ve got your religious views on AI, and you’re telling other people they’re the obvious truth, but you have no evidence to back them up, it’s just vibes.
Where is your evidence that they do think? Or are those just your vibes?
I thought we were going to go back and forth with ideas, not shut everything down because you don’t like the answers
I’m a skeptic, My position is caution. I think we should advance our science to the point where we have empirical answers to these questions before we use AI for labour. I think it’s reckless and irresponsible to use a technology when we don’t understand its ethical consequences.
Ok, but where is your evidence that machines can think?
They can process data, and I believe thinking is just a word for processing data.
Well you’re incorrect. But alright, good to know