this post was submitted on 28 May 2024
1064 points (96.8% liked)

Fuck AI

3464 readers
852 users here now

"We did it, Patrick! We made a technological breakthrough!"

A place for all those who loathe AI to discuss things, post articles, and ridicule the AI hype. Proud supporter of working people. And proud booer of SXSW 2024.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] NABDad@lemmy.world 93 points 1 year ago

In a robotics lab where I once worked, they used to have a large industrial robot arm with a binocular vision platform mounted on it. It used the two cameras to track an objects position in 3 dimensional space and stay a set distance from the object.

It worked the way our eyes worked, adjusting the pan and tilt of the cameras quickly for small movements and adjusting the pan and tilt of the platform and position of the arm to follow larger movements.

Viewers watching the robot would get an eerie and false sense of consciousness from the robot, because the camera movements matched what we would see people's eyes do.

Someone also put a necktie on the robot which didn't hurt the illusion.

[–] CaptainEffort@sh.itjust.works 87 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (4 children)
[–] OlPatchy2Eyes@lemmy.world 21 points 1 year ago

We've been had

[–] ech@lemm.ee 14 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Finishing up a rewatch through Community as we speak. Funny to see the gimmick (purportedly) used in real life.

[–] Deway@lemmy.world 13 points 1 year ago

He was so streets ahead.

[–] saddlebag@lemmy.world 9 points 1 year ago

That was my first thought!

[–] JackGreenEarth@lemm.ee 61 points 1 year ago (47 children)

How would we even know if an AI is conscious? We can't even know that other humans are conscious; we haven't yet solved the hard problem of consciousness.

[–] JoeBigelow@lemmy.ca 27 points 1 year ago (4 children)

Does anybody else feel rather solipsistic or is it just me?

[–] TexasDrunk@lemmy.world 19 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I doubt you feel that way since I'm the only person that really exists.

Jokes aside, when I was in my teens back in the 90s I felt that way about pretty much everyone that wasn't a good friend of mine. Person on the internet? Not a real person. Person at the store? Not a real person. Boss? Customer? Definitely not people.

I don't really know why it started, when it stopped, or why it stopped, but it's weird looking back on it.

[–] SuddenDownpour@sh.itjust.works 9 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Andrew Tate has convinced a ton of teenage boys to think the same, apparently. Kinda ironic.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] lvxferre@mander.xyz 14 points 1 year ago (4 children)

A Cicero a day and your solipsism goes away.

Rigour is important, and at the end of the day we don't really know anything. However this stuff is supposed to be practical; at a certain arbitrary point you need to say "nah, I'm certain enough of this statement being true that I can claim that it's true, thus I know it."

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] azertyfun@sh.itjust.works 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

We don't even know what we mean when we say "humans are conscious".

Also I have yet to see a rebuttal to "consciousness is just an emergent neurological phenomenon and/or a trick the brain plays on itself" that wasn't spiritual and/or cooky.

Look at the history of things we thought made humans humans, until we learned they weren't unique. Bipedality. Speech. Various social behaviors. Tool-making. Each of those were, in their time, fiercely held as "this separates us from the animals" and even caused obvious biological observations to be dismissed. IMO "consciousness" is another of those, some quirk of our biology we desperately cling on to as a defining factor of our assumed uniqueness.

To be clear LLMs are not sentient, or alive. They're just tools. But the discourse on consciousness is a distraction, if we are one day genuinely confronted with this moral issue we will not find a clear binary between "conscious" and "not conscious". Even within the human race we clearly see a spectrum. When does a toddler become conscious? How much brain damage makes someone "not conscious"? There are no exact answers to be found.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (45 replies)
[–] iAvicenna@lemmy.world 36 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Noooooo Timmy the Pencil! I haven't even seen this demonstration but I am deeply affected.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world 32 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Wait wasn't this directly from Community the very first episode?

That professor's name? Albert Einstein. And everyone clapped.

[–] Doof@lemmy.world 12 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Yes it was - minus the googly eyes

[–] afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world 25 points 1 year ago (4 children)

Found it

https://youtu.be/z906aLyP5fg?si=YEpk6AQLqxn0UP6z

Good job OP. Took a scene from a show from 15 years ago and added some craft supplies from Kohls. Very creative.

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] mPony@lemmy.world 31 points 1 year ago (1 children)

RIP Timmy
We barely knew ye

[–] Colonel_Panic_@lemm.ee 23 points 1 year ago (1 children)

We met you only just at noon, A friend like Tim we barely knew. Taken from us far too soon, Yellow Standard #2.

[–] mPony@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

torn by fingers malcontent, pink eraser left unspent

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] MeDuViNoX@sh.itjust.works 30 points 1 year ago (1 children)

WTF? My boy Tim didn't deserve to go out like that!

[–] Aceticon@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago

Look at the bright side: there are two Tiny Timmys now.

[–] Lotarion@lemmy.world 28 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Tbf I'd gasp too, like wth

[–] ameancow@lemmy.world 11 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (3 children)

Humans are so good at imagining things alive that just reading a story about Timmy the pencil is eliciting feelings of sympathy and reactions.

We are not good judges of things in general. Maybe one day these AI tools will actually help us and give us better perception and wisdom for dealing with the universe, but that end-goal is a lot further away than the tech-bros want to admit. We have decades of absolute slop and likely a few disasters to wade through.

And there's going to be a LOT of people falling in love with super-advanced chat bots that don't experience the world in any way.

[–] Fedizen@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

next you're going to tell me the moon doesn't have a face on it

[–] dual_sport_dork@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago

It's clearly a rabbit.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] HawlSera@lemm.ee 24 points 1 year ago
[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 18 points 1 year ago (2 children)

And now ChatGPT has a friendly-sounding voice with simulated emotional inflections...

[–] CitizenKong@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago

That's why I love Ex Machina so much. Way ahead of its time both in showing the hubris of rich tech-bros and the dangers of false empathy.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] glimse@lemmy.world 14 points 1 year ago (3 children)

I don't know why this bugs me but it does. It's like he's implying Turing was wrong and that he knows better. He reminds me of those "we've been thinking about the pyramids wrong!" guys.

[–] Ephera@lemmy.ml 18 points 1 year ago

I wouldn't say he's implying Turing himself was wrong. Turing merely formulated a test for indistinguishability, and it still shows that.
It's just that indistinguishability is not useful anymore as a metric, so we should stop using Turing tests.

[–] lvxferre@mander.xyz 11 points 1 year ago (24 children)

Nah. Turing skipped this matter altogether. In fact, it's the main point of the Turing test aka imitation game:

I PROPOSE to consider the question, 'Can machines think?' This should begin with definitions of the meaning of the terms 'machine 'and 'think'. The definitions might be framed so as to reflect so far as possible the normal use of the words, but this attitude is dangerous. If the meaning of the words 'machine' and 'think 'are to be found by examining how they are commonly used it is difficult to escape the conclusion that the meaning and the answer to the question, 'Can machines think?' is to be sought in a statistical survey such as a Gallup poll. But this is absurd. Instead of attempting such a definition I shall replace the question by another, which is closely related to it and is expressed in relatively unambiguous words.

In other words what's Turing is saying is "who cares if they think? Focus on their behaviour dammit, do they behave intelligently?". And consciousness is intrinsically tied to thinking, so... yeah.

load more comments (24 replies)
[–] nova_ad_vitum@lemmy.ca 6 points 1 year ago

The validity of Turing tests at determining whether something is "intelligent" and what that means exactly has been debated since...well...Turing.

[–] kshade@lemmy.world 10 points 1 year ago

Anthropomorphism is one hell of a drug

[–] NutWrench@lemmy.world 10 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

We're good at scamming investors into thinking that a room full of monkeys on typewriters can be "AI." And all it takes to make that happen is to waste time, resources, lives and money, (ESPECIALLY money) into building an army of fusion-powered robots to beat the monkeys into working just a little bit harder.

Because that's businesses solution to everything: work harder, not smarter.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] RBWells@lemmy.world 9 points 1 year ago

I used to tell my kids "Just pretend to sleep, trick me into thinking you are sleeping, I don't know the difference. Just pretend, lay there with your eyes closed."

I could tell, of course, and they did end up asleep, but I think that is like the Turing test - if you are talking to someone and it's not a person but you can't tell, from your perspective it's a person. Not necessarily from the perspective of the machine, we can only know our own experience so that is the measure.

[–] JimSamtanko@lemm.ee 9 points 1 year ago (3 children)

That is one astute point! Damn.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] match@pawb.social 8 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Alan Watts, talking on the subject of Buddhist vegetarianism, said that even if vegetables and animals both suffer when we eat them, vegetables don't scream as loudly. It is not good for your own mental state to perceive something else suffering, whether or not that thing is actually suffering, because it puts you in an an unhealthy position of ignoring your own inherent sense of compassion.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] mhague@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The whole time everyone has been freaking out about AI I've been quietly enjoying just this fact. Like "neat, this place triggers my fear response", "neat, advanced text prediction triggers my 'talking to person' response."

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] SchmidtGenetics@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago (8 children)

Were people maybe not shocked at the action or outburst of anger? Why are we assuming every reaction is because of the death of something “conscious”?

[–] braxy29@lemmy.world 11 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

i mean, i just read the post to my very sweet, empathetic teen. her immediate reaction was, "nooo, Tim! 😢"

edit - to clarify, i don't think she was reacting to an outburst, i think she immediately demonstrated that some people anthropomorphize very easily.

humans are social creatures (even if some of us don't tend to think of ourselves that way). it serves us, and the majority of us are very good at imagining what others might be thinking (even if our imaginings don't reflect reality), or identifying faces where there are none (see - outlets, googly eyes).

[–] ryven@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Right, it's shocking that he snaps the pencil because the listeners were playing along, and then he suddenly went from pretending to have a friend to pretending to murder said friend. It's the same reason you might gasp when a friendly NPC gets murdered in your D&D game: you didn't think they were real, but you were willing to pretend they were.

The AI hype doesn't come from people who are pretending. It's a different thing.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (6 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›