Instead of asking whether a system can imitate human behavior, the relevant question is whether it can generate new functional information.
Read More ›
If strategy is more important than ideology for accelerationists, that is probably because their aims are incoherent and their groups fragment easily.
Read More ›
Lê’s essay offers a much more sober assessment of transhumanism, the war on human exceptionalism, and the idea that machines think like people.
Read More ›
AI displays very impressive horizontal integration (integrating existing concepts) but not vertical integration (entirely new inventions).
Read More ›
If this is what happens when people think that human consciousness has a purely material evolutionary origin, it is a strong argument for the opposite view.
Read More ›
AI belongs to this world of necessity and it is bound by the inputs we give it: code, training data, prompts. It has no imagination.
Read More ›
First, we must remind ourselves that “data is not the plural of anecdote.”
Read More ›
The Stanford Lab for Mental Health Innovation examined the unique risks of chatbots harming children. In many ways, this study confirms the obvious.
Read More ›
Lazy lawyers have no doubt filed hallucinated content orders of magnitude more often.
Read More ›
Russian philosopher Nikolai Berdyaev long ago argued that human creativity springs from freedom — just what machines do not have.
Read More ›
Because he says the “genie” (or maybe the GenAI) “is out of the bottle,” Dr. Dembski wants me to submit to the myth of progress by sharing even one use of AI in education that I support.
Read More ›
His paper, “Artificial General Intelligence Is Nowhere Near, Artificial Specific Stupidity Is Already Here,” challenges both hype and groundless fear.
Read More ›
Dr. Dembski wants us to use technology with wisdom. I share his broader goal, but not the use of generative AI chatbots to get there.
Read More ›
When you prompt an LLM, the entire conversation acts as a prompt driving the reply. Thus your prompt can push the LLM in unforeseen, unintended directions.
Read More ›
In Homann’s view, AI is best seen as “autocomplete with ambition.” But that doesn’t mean it can’t be quite useful.
Read More ›
Claims that an LLM is intelligent don’t square with the fact that it may answer a question one way and, a few seconds later, simply contradict itself.
Read More ›
Ultimately, the AI knowledge system will be enriched or impoverished by human decisions, not by discovering a superintelligence.
Read More ›
The authors really believe in AI doom. Soares has stopped contributing to a retirement plan. I show that the serious problem is NOT superintelligence.
Read More ›
Even if we adopt a materialist view of the mind, I believe I can show why it is not possible for a machine to develop a mind.
Read More ›
Bottom line: Text generative AIs do not capture meaning. They capture relationships which approximate meaning well enough to be useful.
Read More ›