this post was submitted on 19 May 2024
247 points (100.0% liked)

196

18159 readers
264 users here now

Be sure to follow the rule before you head out.


Rule: You must post before you leave.



Other rules

Behavior rules:

Posting rules:

NSFW: NSFW content is permitted but it must be tagged and have content warnings. Anything that doesn't adhere to this will be removed. Content warnings should be added like: [penis], [explicit description of sex]. Non-sexualized breasts of any gender are not considered inappropriate and therefore do not need to be blurred/tagged.

If you have any questions, feel free to contact us on our matrix channel or email.

Other 196's:

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Excrubulent@slrpnk.net 8 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (8 children)

They are unique abilities of people; whether a neural net can be a person would depend on whether it possesses those abilities. Humans are just the only examples of people that we currently have.

Understanding is not something current neural nets have. They are stochastic parrots.

EDIT: Perhaps I should've said "Humans are the only uncontroversial examples of people that we currently have," but I guess I put too much faith into people to not get sidetracked by irrelevant technicalities. Animals could be considered people by this definition, that's true and says a lot about our anthropocentric society, but that doesn't change the fact that LLMs are not people.

[–] superb@lemmy.blahaj.zone 9 points 1 year ago (5 children)

I do not accept that humans are the only examples of creativity and understanding, in fact I think you find those traits all over the animal kingdom. From great apes making tools, to fish and birds spending hours building beautiful creations to attract a mate

[–] Excrubulent@slrpnk.net 2 points 1 year ago (4 children)

Even accepting that you're right you've missed the point. To the extent that animals are able to have creativity and understanding, perhaps we should understand them to be "people".

And at any rate, we still don't see this kind of thing from LLMs.

[–] superb@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I missed the point on purpose, because I mostly agree with you :)

[–] Excrubulent@slrpnk.net 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Well if it helps I agree that you can't actually say humans are the only people, I was simplifying to focus on the point. Maybe that was actually a mistake.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)