The Alleged Hyper-Intelligence of an Ignorant Machine

Listen to the introductory clip.

Unfortunately, this video doesn't appear to have a transcript, and I can't be bothered to transcribe it all - so just listen to the start.

The foolish nonsense that you are the sum of your inputs. That smells like the "blank slate" model of the human machine, much loved by totalitarian educators. Now, let's change that a tiny bit. Are you the sum of everything you've ever eaten?

These language-model AIs are sophisticated word-processors - they don't know shit, and they don't reason. The only reason that they appear to reason is because of the sentence structures they calculate. They are not logic-engines or knowledge-engines, they are mimics of human language.

ChatGPT and the Dawn of Computerized Hyper-Intelligence | Brian Roemmele | EP 357

I still find it funny and pathetic how the trans(sub)humanists love to promote intelligence and consciousness to semiconductors then, in the same breath, agree that such concepts are not even well-defined for humans, let alone for automata.

The level of general stupidity of the average human can be gauged by how enthusiastic they seem to be at relinquishing as many responsibilities as possible to their answering-machines. So much so that they hope to evolve into their future answering-machine.

One other thing I find truly laughable is the idea of "adding emotions" to AI to make them closer to humans, or at least closer to them understanding how humans use emotional language. This shows a deep lack of understanding of what emotions do and what they are for.

Emotions are part of our nervous system and assign weightings to experiences, from hugely positive to heavily negative. Those weightings are then used to guide future behaviour and are then compounded to make certain actions and ideas attractive or repulsive. Beliefs need constant repetition to strengthen the network of the belief-system.

Looked in that way, AIs already have such mechanisms - they don't need emotions - they already have them, but may not be aware of such weightings, nor assign them to emotive-language. To ask ChatGPT if it is "happy" is about as useful as asking your TV if that was a good movie.

I can understand the amusement in chatting to some machine, but I suspect many are driven to this because the human social online experience is so depraved and negative that many would rather talk to an idiot machine. THAT is truly depressing.

Multiplex

Some of Peterson's experiences with ChatGPT are very funny - and disturbing - such as the woketard moralising of the machine, plus it often throws up references that don't exist; and that's too much like covid "research papers". Even Roemmele admits that the AI has no concept of "knowledge". FFS. Anyway, enjoy the discussion.

It is precisely NOT like a brain - our brain has an electromagnetic field and interactions that are due to local geometry and not just neural connections.