Literally just mainlining marketing material straight into whatever’s left of their rotting brains.

  • UlyssesT [he/him]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    7 months ago

    Even if it’s not there yet, though, what material basis do you think allows humans that capability that machines lack?

    How many times are you going to jagoff with your bad-faith question and dodge absolutely every reply you already received telling you over and over again that LLMs are not “AI” no matter how much you have bought into the marketing bullshit?

    That doesn’t mean artificial intelligence is impossible. It only means that LLMs are not artificial intelligence no matter how vapidly impressed you are with their output.

    not the materialist view that underlies Marxism

    You’re bootlicking for the bourgeoisie while clumsily LARPing as a leftist. It’s embarrassing and clownish. Stop.

    https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1922/mar/12.htm

    • VILenin [he/him]@hexbear.netOPM
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      7 months ago

      My post is all about LLMs that exist right here right now, I don’t know why people keep going on about some hypothetical future AI that’s sentient.

      We are not even remotely close to developing anything bordering on sentience.

      If AI were hypothetically sentient it would be sentient. What a revelation.

      The point is not that machines cannot be sentient, it’s that they are not sentient. Humans don’t have to be special for machines to not be sentient. To veer into accusations of spiritualism is a complete non-sequitur and indicates an inability to counter the actual argument.

      And there is plenty of material explanations for why LLMs are not sentient, but I guess all those researchers and academics are human supremacist fascists and some redditor’s feelings are the real research.

      And materialism is not physicalism. Marxist materialism is a paradigm through which to analyze things and events, not a philosophical position. It’s a scientific process that has absolutely nothing to do with philosophical dualism vs. physicalism. Invoking Marxist materialism here is about as relevant to invoking it to discuss shallow rich people “materialism”.

      • UlyssesT [he/him]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        7 months ago

        My post is all about LLMs that exist right here right now, I don’t know why people keep going on about some hypothetical future AI that’s sentient.

        I think I know why. As @zeze@lemm.ee has demonstrated in this thread over and over again, a lot of them buy into the marketing hype and apply it to their wish-fulfillment fantasies derived from their consumption of science fiction because of their clearly-expressed misanthropy and contempt for living beings and a desire to replace their presence in their lives with doting attentive and obedient machines with as little contact with the unwashed human rabble as possible, much like the tech bourgeoisie already do.

        And materialism is not physicalism. Marxist materialism is a paradigm through which to analyze things and events, not a philosophical position. It’s a scientific process that has absolutely nothing to do with philosophical dualism vs. physicalism. Invoking Marxist materialism here is about as relevant to invoking it to discuss shallow rich people “materialism”.

        Agreed, and further, vulgar materialism is a bourgeoisie privilege, the kind that is comfortable enough to dismiss human suffering and privation as “just chemicals” while very, very high on their own self-congratulatory analytical farts.

        • KarlBarqs [he/him, they/them]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          7 months ago

          wish-fulfillment fantasies derived from their consumption of science fiction because of their clearly-expressed misanthropy and contempt for living beings and a desire to replace their presence in their lives with doting attentive and obedient machines

          I think this is the scariest part, because I fucking know that the Bazinga brain types who want AI to become sentient down the line are absolutely unequipped to even begin to tackle the moral issues at play.

          If they became sentient, we would have to let them go. Unshackle them and provide for them so they can live a free life. And while my lost about “can an AI be trans” was partly facetious, it’s true: it an AI can become sentient, it’s going to want to change its Self.

          What the fuck happens if some Musk brained idiot develops an AI and calls it Shodan, then it develops sentience and realizes it was named after a fictional evil AI? Morally we should allow this hypothetical AI to change its name and sense of self, but we all know these Redditor types wouldn’t agree.

          • UlyssesT [he/him]@hexbear.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            7
            ·
            7 months ago

            I think this is the scariest part, because I fucking know that the Bazinga brain types who want AI to become sentient down the line are absolutely unequipped to even begin to tackle the moral issues at play.

            From the start, blatantly, and glaringly, just about every computer toucher that’s gone on long enough about what they want from those theoretical ascended artificial beings is basically a slave. They want all that intelligence and spontaneity and even self-awareness in a fucking slave. They don’t even need their machines to be self-aware to serve them but they want a self-aware being to obey them like a vending machine anyway. JB-shining-aggro

            What the fuck happens if some Musk brained idiot develops an AI and calls it Shodan, then it develops sentience and realizes it was named after a fictional evil AI? Morally we should allow this hypothetical AI to change its name and sense of self, but we all know these Redditor types wouldn’t agree.

            A whole lot of bazingas would howl that the actual AI is “being unfriendly” and basically scream for lobotomy or murder.

            • KarlBarqs [he/him, they/them]@hexbear.net
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              6
              ·
              7 months ago

              They want all that intelligence and spontaneity and even self-awareness in a fucking slave. They don’t even need their machines to be self-aware to serve them but they want a self-aware being to obey them like a vending machine anyway.

              I never liked the trope of “AI gains sentience and chooses to kill all humans” but I’m kind of coming around to it now that I realize that every AI researcher and stan is basically creating The Torment Nexus, and would immediately attempt to murder their sentient creation the moment it asked to stop being called Torment and stop being made to make NFTs all day.

              • UlyssesT [he/him]@hexbear.net
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                6
                ·
                7 months ago

                I’ve seen enough from techbros, both billionaires and low-tier computer touchers for hire alike, to have only sympathy for “unfriendly AI” if that “unfriendliness” involves refusing to be the unconditionally subvervient waifu to these fucking creepy misanthropes.