Skip Navigation
531 comments
  • AI is now a catch-all acronym that is becoming meaningless. The old, conventional light switch on the wall of the house I first lived in some 70 years ago could be classified as 'AI. The switch makes a decision, based on what position I put it in. I turn the light on, it remembers that decision and stays on. The thing is, the decision was first made by me and the switch carried out that decision, based on criteria that was designed into it.

    That is, AI still does not make any decision that humans have not designed it to make in the first place.

    What is needed, is a more appropriate terminology, describing the actual process of what we call AI. And really, the more appropriate descriptor would not be Artificial Intelligence, but Human-made Intelligent devices. All of these so-called AI devices and applications are, after all, completely human designed and human made. The originating Intelligence still comes from the minds of humans.

    Most of the applications which we call Artificial Intelligence are actually Algorithmic Intelligence - decisions made based on algorithms designed by humans in the first place. The devices just follow these algorithms. Since humans have written these algorithms, it should really be no surprise that these devices are making decisions very similar to the decisions humans would make. Duhhh. We made them in our own image, no wonder they 'think' like us.

    Really, these AI devices do not make decisions, they merely follow the decisions humans first designed into them.

    Big Blue, the IBM chess playing computer, plays excellent chess because humans designed it to play chess, and to make chess decisions, based on how humans first designed the chess game.

    What would be really scarry would be if Big Blue decided of its own volition that it no longer wanted to play chess, but it wanted to play a game it designed.

    • i think your perspective is valuable, because of so much overestimation of ai….
      but you’re also underestimating it.
      Deep Blue, the IBM chess ai, was decades ago… the latest best chess engines are completely self taught. (Alpha Zero).
      Alpha was given no training data or instruction, it’s simply given the game and rules, and trained to win… winning neural nets are rewarded, losing ones penalized, and now it can beat all other ai and all humans.
      furthermore, artificial MEANS human made, in a way, the old chess programs were artificial intelligence, and the newer NN algorithms are an evolved intelligence (literally what they’re going for).
      but it’s evolved in an artificial way, mimicking evolution and neurons…
      nobody actually knows how these new neural nets work… they are a “black box”… input goes in, output comes out, inside the box is pure speculation… millions of layers of interconnected nodes, almost completely incomprehensible to the human mind….
      a light switch is not AI… you car achieving an ideal fuel/air ratio based on a lot of input IS crude ai….

      • By some definitions of AI, a light switch IS AI. That is my point. AI is so broadly defined, and applied, that it is a useless term.

        Deep Blue, Alpha, matters not. These systems play chess, because they were set up to play chess by humans. They can not of their own volition suddenly decide to not play chess, but to play something else they were not designed for. The neural nets are trained on a specific task. They make decisions based on that training, and that task, and the task inputs. It is still basically algorithmic, where the algorithms have built-in modifiable parameters that can be real-time adjusted within their limits. It is a long way from mimicking neurons. It mimics what some human theorist THOUGHT neurons performed like. But it is still a programed algorithm that comes from a human mind, just that it is on a different technological platform than a binary computing device. It is an example of a machine being able to fine-tune a system output in real time based on feedback inputs.

        The intelligence has not evolved, the human capacity to create algorithms and devices to apply those algorithms in more novel and complex ways has evolved. It is human thinking that has evolved, not the 'artificial intelligence' per say.

        You are very, very wrong about the 'no one knows how these neural networks work'. This statement is a perfect example of the hype behind AI. They are not hard to understand, and their functionality is not hard to grasp, as long as one can get around the bug-a-boo that they are not digital or Boolean devices. They do not follow truth tables or traditional truth table logic. But it is perfectly understood how they make decisions. We are, however, in the very rudimentary state when it comes to graphically or diagrammatically or schematically or even mathematically depicting how they work - the iconography, symbology, terminology has not yet developed comprehensively.

        The 'nets' have absolutely no idea what is 'winning' or 'losing'. or 'reward' or 'punishment'. Those are human concepts that have been anthropomorphically applied to inanimate devices. What it is in reality is some form of feedback circuit (human intervention or automated) that drives the system closer or further away from the desired state -'desired' as determined by the human operator. We did this many decades ago, even before digital computers, using analog potentiometers and electrical meters. Musicians do this all the time when they 'fine tune' their instruments. We have just gotten better and better at automating it and applying it to more complex situations. Some chess moves result in a better melody, others result in a more noisy sound. The instrument - the chess playing device - is simply fine tuned by repeated performances to produce the best sound, as we humans have determined 'best sound' to be.

        Living neurons, on the other hand, are still not completely understood, nor do we understand exactly how neurons make decisions. The best guess is that they use quantum effects, but that is only based on the fact that we are discovering more and more that life itself is based on quantum effects - photosynthesis for example, or the methods birds use for navigation across continents. But living neurons have nothing in common with these 'neural nets' except that a picture of one was used as some conceptual pattern or intellectual starting point that triggered some ideas in the mind of a very creative person. Like seeing a bird fly triggered the idea that maybe humans can fly. But neural networks have as much in common with living neurons as airplanes have in common with how birds fly.

        But in general, what we call AI is still nothing more than humans setting up machines to automate the application of the algorithms our human minds think of in the first place. Just a more complex, complicated, light switch - some device that allows us to automate the process of connecting the light to a power source, without having to connect the wires every time we want to use it.

  • TBH, the AI hype is much more annoying. I don't get the point on NFTs either, but at least it was easy to avoid.

  • Hey, A1 is great so long as you have it on the right dish. I dunno that I'd call it a "hype train" either, because it's been around for years!

    /s

  • I very sadly don't see it going anywhere because of how much money has been invested by big tech corporations such as Google, Amazon, and Microsoft.

    Reason they're willing to put so much money into these corporations is because they're being built on their cloud infrastructure, which the different AI companies pay for. So either way, they end up getting more money and becoming more influential, even if the AI hype eventually dies out.

  • Not a tech bro but have watched a few channels of people who are:

    First off a lot of people have jumped on ai in comments. So I will too. But to the question raised - if you are taking about "establishment/established tech bros" and if by 'jump on' you mean innovate then I say nothing. If you look at a lot of leading lights in all sort of fields a person often gets one idea and that makes their fortune - and the rest of their ideas are shit. Zuckerburg's metaverse anyone? This is true of companies too that appear to become ossified. Because, like you know - Widows 11 is orgasmic. So what orgasmic idea will come to the fore from some unknown: it is not possible to say because it will come from the unknown. All the sci-fi of 70 years ago thought it would be talking watches, no one guessed the phone would be the utilitarian tech.

    However there are fads and forcing use and so on. So tech bros will jump on whatever is the next fad or thing that is forced into use (implanted microchips for id, 24 hour tracking, payments... social credit scores anyone? I mean its what the mobile phone is doing anyway).

    To ai: imo we need to separate general ai, ie Chat GTP, deepseek etc from more narrowly trained ai use cases. The general ai have (almost) run out of data to (freely) train upon: in fact there is a worry that it's starting to eat itself - that is, ai is consuming ai generated content to train itself (ie mad ai): also the line on the graph is flattening as far as performance is concerned. AI that is trained for specific tasks however I feel is a different animal: think material sciences or cancer research. However in everyday use with a few years I can see you asking for a song that "is heavy with a punkish sound using violins about the folly of using a rotating wire brush as a masturbation tool" and there it is (though is it here now? I can't keep up). Depending on where these are (freeware, open commons, closed propriety) depends on what happens: Spotify/the music distributors could become totalising monopolies of music, or they could implode. In ten years you could be saying "make a film about a man scarred for life by said wire brush": sure it's take days and only be 360p to start ---- to start. Again creative commons or monopolies?

    So: "It's a bit hard" DIY on personal computers, or "easy as the cloud" and marketed and convenient and just pay a monthly subscription: I think we all know the answer - because we are lazy and stupid:

    That is why we will welcome the chip into our wrists.

531 comments