Filosofía crítica

183 readers

1 users here now

Comunidad para compartir y debatir sobre el legado de la filosofía crítica y dialéctica, que ha existido mucho antes de los tiempos de Sócrates y Demócrito. Son bienvenidos todos los artículos, textos, digresiones, ensayos sobre la filosofía dialéctica, incluidas las corrientes cercanas al pensamiento de Hegel y Marx.

founded 3 years ago

MODERATORS

Dubois_arache@lemmy.blahaj.zone

Why AI Doesn’t Think, Cannot Reason, Isn’t Intelligent and Will Never Achieve Consciousness (www.nakedcapitalism.com)

submitted 1 month ago by Dubois_arache@lemmy.blahaj.zone to c/filosofiacritica@lemmy.blahaj.zone

2 comments fedilink hide all child comments

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.dbzer0.com/post/71702446

The infrastructure needed to run AI approximates that of a modern skyscraper. The question that has yet to be answered is: is AI worth it? Is it a crucial new technology that will justify its costs, widely considered? Or is it an occasionally interesting toy whose environmental footprint will end the planet?

...

The ability to run a billion permutations in a microsecond makes AI a very powerful tool. But how much better is a world in which AI can run a billion permutations in a microsecond than the same world without it? The question requires a social answer, And the social answer must emerge from clear and complete understanding of the social costs of AI. It isn’t good enough to point to the math problems solved to justify the social investment in AI. The question is: what else could be accomplished with those same resources (opportunity costs)?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] mvirts@lemmy.world 5 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I couldn't bring myself to read every word of this rant, for lack of time and interest, but I think the arguments I did read fully also apply to the question of human consciousness and thought just as well as they do to "AI" aka language models.

[–] sqw@lemmy.blahaj.zone 0 points 1 month ago

yeah, i felt this was half-baked. i have come to some similar conclusions about the LLMs' output not being anything remotely resembling human reasoning, but that has more to do with the details than the simple assertion that an algorithm cannot produce thought at all