Apple just proved AI "reasoning" models like Claude, DeepSeek-R1, and o3-mini don't actually reason at all. They just memorize patterns really well.
-
Yeah, that’s the problem with the field, too many delusional people trying to find god in a computer because they didn’t understand what Asimov was actually writing about.
wrote on last edited by [email protected]That it has to be nothing or everything with you, decision trees or God himself, is the likely foundation of your inability to have simple objective take on the existing technology and its capabilities. It’s giving bi-polar.
Now I’m not uninformed- I’m too informed!! LoL. That goalpost just shifted right across the field, and still you cannot admit to your ignorance.
-
Wow it's almost like the computer scientists were saying this from the start but were shouted over by marketing teams.
For me it kinda went the other way, I'm almost convinced that human intelligence is the same pattern repeating, just more general (yet)
-
It’s not even to feign talent, it’s people trying to replace the brain instead of using applicable tools to help us advance and progress, you’re just advertising a product.
People have been presenting the work of others as their own for all of history. All that changed was a new tool was found to do that. But at least these are a form of derivative works, and not just putting their name directly on someone else’s carbon copy.
-
That it has to be nothing or everything with you, decision trees or God himself, is the likely foundation of your inability to have simple objective take on the existing technology and its capabilities. It’s giving bi-polar.
Now I’m not uninformed- I’m too informed!! LoL. That goalpost just shifted right across the field, and still you cannot admit to your ignorance.
wrote on last edited by [email protected]You haven’t made any point or even expressed an understanding of how these programs work. You’ve just been evangelizing about how AI is great, I genuinely don’t believe you understand what you’re talking about because you’ve expressed literally no proper understanding or explanation of your points outside of using a scene from I, Robot which kind of makes you look like you entirely misconstrue the concepts you’re sucking the dick of.
What kind of computer sciences do you work with as a profession? What is your applicable lab work?
-
People have been presenting the work of others as their own for all of history. All that changed was a new tool was found to do that. But at least these are a form of derivative works, and not just putting their name directly on someone else’s carbon copy.
wrote on last edited by [email protected]Tell that to Studio Ghibli. Also, people being shitty is not a good excuse for people to be shitty, you’re advocating to make it easier to enable people to be shitty.
-
You haven’t made any point or even expressed an understanding of how these programs work. You’ve just been evangelizing about how AI is great, I genuinely don’t believe you understand what you’re talking about because you’ve expressed literally no proper understanding or explanation of your points outside of using a scene from I, Robot which kind of makes you look like you entirely misconstrue the concepts you’re sucking the dick of.
What kind of computer sciences do you work with as a profession? What is your applicable lab work?
I’m not evangelizing. You incorrectly stated the limitations and development paths of the tech, and I corrected you.
Again with the religious verbiage from you. But I’m the one proselytizing?
It’s not nothing- it’s an impressive feat of technology that’s still in its infancy. It’s also not everything, and not anywhere close to a reasoning mind at this point. You are obsessive with extremes.
-
I’m not evangelizing. You incorrectly stated the limitations and development paths of the tech, and I corrected you.
Again with the religious verbiage from you. But I’m the one proselytizing?
It’s not nothing- it’s an impressive feat of technology that’s still in its infancy. It’s also not everything, and not anywhere close to a reasoning mind at this point. You are obsessive with extremes.
wrote on last edited by [email protected]You didn’t answer my question. You’ve also still yet to give any details on your reasoning.
-
Tell that to Studio Ghibli. Also, people being shitty is not a good excuse for people to be shitty, you’re advocating to make it easier to enable people to be shitty.
wrote on last edited by [email protected]Studio Ghibli does not have exclusive rights to their style- whether it’s used by a person or an AI to inspire a new image. Those are derivative works. Totally legal. Arguably ethical. If it’s not a direct copy, how has the studio been harmed? What work of theirs was diminished?
I’m advocating for tools. How people use those tools is on them.
-
You didn’t answer my question. You’ve also still yet to give any details on your reasoning.
No, I’m not gonna dox myself.
Reasoning for what? What details are you needing for clarification?
-
Studio Ghibli does not have exclusive rights to their style- whether it’s used by a person or an AI to inspire a new image. Those are derivative works. Totally legal. Arguably ethical. If it’s not a direct copy, how has the studio been harmed? What work of theirs was diminished?
I’m advocating for tools. How people use those tools is on them.
I disagree.
-
You didn’t answer my question. You’ve also still yet to give any details on your reasoning.
Actually, you’re out of your depth, and I think you’ve been outed enough. We’re done, and I’m blocking.
-
No, I’m not gonna dox myself.
Reasoning for what? What details are you needing for clarification?
Let’s start simple. How do these programs work? Where do they get their data and how is it applied? And a general field of work is not doxxing, you’re just dodging accountability.
-
Actually, you’re out of your depth, and I think you’ve been outed enough. We’re done, and I’m blocking.
The sure sign of confidence, you’ve definitely shown me how stupid I am.
-
The architecture of these LRMs may make monkeys fly out of my butt. It hasn't been proven that the architecture doesn't allow it.
You are asking to prove a negative. The onus is to show that the architecture can reason. Not to prove that it can't.
wrote on last edited by [email protected]that's very true, I'm just saying this paper did not eliminate the possibility and is thus not as significant as it sounds. If they had accomplished that, the bubble would collapse, this will not meaningfully change anything, however.
also, it's not as unreasonable as that because these are automatically assembled bundles of simulated neurons.
-
People think they want AI, but they don’t even know what AI is on a conceptual level.
They want something like the Star Trek computer or one of Tony Stark's AIs that were basically deus ex machinas for solving some hard problem behind the scenes. Then it can say "model solved" or they can show a test simulation where the ship doesn't explode (or sometimes a test where it only has an 85% chance of exploding when it used to be 100%, at which point human intuition comes in and saves the day by suddenly being better than the AI again and threads that 15% needle or maybe abducts the captain to go have lizard babies with).
AIs that are smarter than us but for some reason don't replace or even really join us (Vision being an exception to the 2nd, and Ultron trying to be an exception to the 1st).
-
They want something like the Star Trek computer or one of Tony Stark's AIs that were basically deus ex machinas for solving some hard problem behind the scenes. Then it can say "model solved" or they can show a test simulation where the ship doesn't explode (or sometimes a test where it only has an 85% chance of exploding when it used to be 100%, at which point human intuition comes in and saves the day by suddenly being better than the AI again and threads that 15% needle or maybe abducts the captain to go have lizard babies with).
AIs that are smarter than us but for some reason don't replace or even really join us (Vision being an exception to the 2nd, and Ultron trying to be an exception to the 1st).
They don’t want AI, they want an app.
-
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.
wrote on last edited by [email protected]"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.
-
that's very true, I'm just saying this paper did not eliminate the possibility and is thus not as significant as it sounds. If they had accomplished that, the bubble would collapse, this will not meaningfully change anything, however.
also, it's not as unreasonable as that because these are automatically assembled bundles of simulated neurons.
This paper does provide a solid proof by counterexample of reasoning not occuring (following an algorithm) when it should.
The paper doesn't need to prove that reasoning never has or will occur. It's only demonstrates that current claims of AI reasoning are overhyped.
-
When are people going to realize, in its current state , an LLM is not intelligent. It doesn’t reason. It does not have intuition. It’s a word predictor.
You'd think the M in LLM would give it away.
-
I agree with you. In its current state, LLM is not sentient, and thus not "Intelligence".
I think it's an easy mistake to confuse sentience and intelligence. It happens in Hollywood all the time - "Skynet began learning at a geometric rate, on July 23 2004 it became self-aware" yadda yadda
But that's not how sentience works. We don't have to be as intelligent as Skynet supposedly was in order to be sentient. We don't start our lives as unthinking robots, and then one day - once we've finally got a handle on calculus or a deep enough understanding of the causes of the fall of the Roman empire - we suddenly blink into consciousness. On the contrary, even the stupidest humans are accepted as being sentient. Even a young child, not yet able to walk or do anything more than vomit on their parents' new sofa, is considered as a conscious individual.
So there is no reason to think that AI - whenever it should be achieved, if ever - will be conscious any more than the dumb computers that precede it.
