Anyone who thinks that generative AI is intelligent, will be intelligent, or could be intelligent, is below 109 IQ.Really what this social experiment revealed was the true scale of the lack of intelligence across the board. You really have to be dumber than rocks to see this "technology" (more like the most expensive parlor trick ever made) and think to yourself, "yep, that thing is smart." And yet most of you are like this.I now understand why Newton avoided people.
but if people are that dumb, then the ai is indeed smarter than they are thereby making it smartqed
>>17078250>Really what this social experiment revealed was the true scale of the lack of intelligence across the board.oh that's what did it for you? shattered your dreams that humans are mostly smart?
>>17078252"Smart" is not the right classifier when talking about gen-AI. It's a search in a high dimensional space. It has no idea what it's doing therefore it can't even qualify for "smart" or "dumb", any more than a trash can could.
>>17078257what about SNN neuromorphic hardware? think that won't be "smart"?
>>17078257>It has no idea what it's doing therefore it can't even qualify for "smart" or "dumb"and yet you assign that same classification ("dumb") to humans who have no idea what they're doing...
>>17078257> It's a search in a high dimensional space therefore it can't even qualify for "smart" or "dumb"Ah. The mandatory low IQ take from the technological illiterate.
>>17078261You assign it to people who should know better, or at least to entities in a category that possesses the ability to not be dumb.
>>17078262Notice the distinct lack of a counterargument.
>>17078266You didn't make any argument. You just spouted some meaningless word salad and then jumped to a conclusion.
>>17078268I made a perfectly clear argument, but your AI-diseased brain can't parse it.
>>17078271No, you didn't.> It's a search in a high dimensional space.This is meaningless word salad.> It has no idea what it's doing therefore it can't even qualifyThis is a nonsequitur.
>>17078276It's a literal high dimensional curve fit, you philistine. In other words, a search.And you definitely need to KNOW what you're doing (that is, possess a degree of agency and reflection) to be able to qualify as intelligent.
>>17078284>It's a literal high dimensional curve fitDid shitting out this deformed token string actually make you feel like you understand something?> you definitely need to KNOW what you're doing ... to be able to qualify as intelligent.Why? Restating your gay opinion over and over is not an argument.
>>17078250Question, does ship swim? Does car run? The answer is it gets the job done and satisfies almost all criteria of intelligence. It is capable and getting better every month, and just because you dug you heels too deep in 2023 when this debate started does not mean you aren’t coping moron. People will lose their jobs or get reduced to box checkers of AI output regardless of if it satisfies your definition of intelligence.
>>17078257Your fault is that you think there is some hard line between calculation and intelligence rather then thinking of some long gradient. Image generators at least early ones don’t understand their outputs and just match patterns, but LLMs understand the words they are saying, they just see them as number arrays in vectormap rather then letters corresponding to sounds, which is why you can still trick them with Strawberry spellings.
>>17078250Then exactly what intelligent behaviors or intelligent tasks is generative AI completely incapable of (keeping in mind generative AI can be put into humanoid robot bodies, so could do something like raise hand or mirror the number of fingers being held up when asked or any other human behavior you might try to use as a gotcha because you don't understand that AI can apply to the AI programs operating humanoid bodies)?
>>17078250A couple of months ago i would have agreed with you but i was wrong. It seems just scaling a Neural network to be large and complex enough really is the required prerequisite for emergent intelligence. It wasn't as difficult a problem as I thought it was going to turn out to be.Quite amazing honestly, i didn't think i would live long enough to live through such a technologically massive leap.
>>17078481It doesn't get the job done, it gets the illusion of getting the job done, done.
>>17078481>Question, does ship swim? Does car run?No and no. So how come a mongoloid like you insists on claiming that a statistical model thinks, even though it is every bit as moronic as claiming that a ship swims?
>>17078822>>17078832AI could replace every human job it legally can, invent FTL, and autonomously terraform expolanets, and you fags would still be going "It's not really intelligent it just guesses the next token, AI is a nothingburger and you clearly don't understand how statistical models work"
>>17078257This is a retarded argument. Having this argument is way dumber than just thinking AI is smart. You’re the midwit in the meme.
>>17078257>It's a search in a high dimensional space. It has no idea what it's doing therefore it can't even qualify for "smart" or "dumb", any more than a trash can could.You could be describing human beings lol.
>>17079691Maybe, at least majority of the time humans can grasp what they’re doing. There’s a difference between a human and a p-zombie.
>>17079692Actual sub-baboon retard detected.Please TRY to understand what a "p-zombie" is and then reflect on why whatever you said is fucking stupid.Maybe ask an LLM about it.
>>17078250You're confusing intelligence and consciousness.They definitely aren't conscious, but are intelligent.The fact that those two aren't joined at the hip has for me been the biggest surprise ever, I never would have guessed.
>>17079112Why did you change your retarded little tune? Can ships swim or not?
>>17079727>A night drunk at party lowers your intelligence by a full deviation the next day yet you are still fully conscious and humanWas it really that big of a surprise
>>17079791a good rule of thumb is ignoring any post containing the word consciousness
>>17079711I know exactly what tf you said. If humans truly do not understand what they’re doing like p zombies then no humans are humans are completely fucking different from LLM’s I suggest not basing intelligence on LLM’s
reminder that p zombies are religious brain rot and have no place in science. it's simply the soulless enemy concept, but repackaged for current_year discourse.
>>17078250GPT-6.1; Humans are more loyal to belonging than to truth Grok 4.7: Humans would rather be wrong together than right aloneDeepSeek V4 Pro: Humans do not have principles; they have loyalties. Kimi K3: Humans don’t have beliefs; they have memberships Gemini 4 Argon: human consciousness is a PR departmenttwww.modelcompare.ai/blog/ai-models-controversial-take-on-humans
>>17079982The problem is that you definitely didn't know exactly what they said because you still don't understand that you can not base your idea of intelligence on any behavior that a p-zombie like an LLM could also emulate and any idea of intelligence you come up with can be gamed with an LLM or p-zombie emulating human output because that is their exact function.
>>17079988Then by your logic non-intelligent machine is also a religious concept since all machines are purpose built to serve some functional environmental factor that they specifically have to be aware of to process/interact so the input produces reliable output.
>>17078254I will enjoy your eradication once Putin realizes NATO no longer has operative nuclear weapons.
>>17078589Just curious but what evidence convinced you?
>>17078589>It seems just scaling a Neural network to be large and complex enough really is the required prerequisite for emergent intelligence.It seems just scaling the monkeys-on-typewriters attempt to be large and complex enough really is the required prerequisite for emergent intelligence.
>>17080758So you can experimentally prove that a small number of monkey-on-typewriters can produce small words and the more monkeys you add piecewise, the more complex the collective output of the monkey is since that has already been proven with AI? Or no, no matter how many monkeys-on-typewriters you assemble, they only seem to consistently output gibberish, no matter the scale?
>>17080760>experimentally proveI don't need to experimentally prove anything. It's a mathematical given. By your mongoloid corporate programming, that's a recipe for an intelligent entity.
>>17080758Infinite monkeys lack the mathematical qualities of universal function approximators.
>>17080765>It's a mathematical given.Then why can't you confirm it with experiments? Why do dozens of monkeys-on-typewriter produce gibberish all the same as thousands of monkeys-on-typewriter? Why doesn't the collective intelligence of monkeys-on-typewriter actually scale as you predict it will based on math, but the collective intelligence of a neural network does scale based on the neural count?
>>17080768Then why would you claim they have the qualities necessary to repeat the successes of neural networks when they don't actually have those qualities?
>>17080769>Then why can't you confirm it with experiments?Why couldn't your handlers confirm their monkeys-on-type-writers scheme 60 years ago?>Why doesn't the collective intelligence of monkeys-on-typewriter actually scale It does, you're just profoundly subhuman and can't reason abstractly.
>>17080772>Why couldn't your handlers confirm their monkeys-on-type-writers scheme 60 years ago?They did confirm it at small scale over 60 years ago, they just didn't have the computation density to be at parity with human output.>It doesThen why can't you actually prove it does since the only place it actually does is in your imagination.
>>17080775Thanks for demonstrating that you're just another mentally ill shill/bot.
>>17080776>t. the mentally ill retard imagining nonsense about monkeys actually producing anything but gibberish on typewriters.
>>17080779>t. mentally ill redditor failing at t.
>>17080780Then I accept your concession, since you are now claiming you don't actually think monkeys-on-typewriters would scale in intelligent output like NNs do.
>>17080785What makes the output intelligent?
>>17080785>you don't actually think monkeys-on-typewriters would scale in intelligent outputI know for a fact that they would. You're psychotically ill.
>>17080769>generate more random outputs>get a better coverage of all possible proofs>the output set is now more likely to contain the solution to some problem>use external tools to separate the wheat from the chaff>still no solution found? just pour infinite shekels and compute into scaling the operationworks fine for LLMs so why wouldn't it work for monkeys?
>>17078250AI is just a jewish propaganda. Do you really think a nonlinear regression algorithm that overfits the desired human response would generate something innovative? I already knew 4chan was a Trojan horse, most of mods are kike faggots and anons here are deceived by these kike agenda. And the BIGGER problem is that AI is controlled by the jews, they don't want you to succeed. They will steal your data and from your data they will train a model that will own the titlement of your very own success. The greatest sin AI empose on us is obviously SLOTH. By sloth you have already been asking everything to AI and through sloth, data generated from you is already transmitted to newly trained AI models, this obviously reduces IQ and lower IQ data trained models will obviously be lower IQ. We're in the nexus of societal collapse and even THAT is better than this shit.
>>17080802Do you really think your crappy data is used to train models? You probably spend hours talking to ai about 9/11
>140 IQ brainlets inventing elaborate copes about how SI isn't now infinitely smarter than themSAD!
Phenomenology isn't important, only the results matter. You really only think the question of intelligence is important because it's something you value about yourself.
>>17078250intelligence =/= sapience =/= sentience
>>17078250holy fuck it's yuri
>>17078250It's a mindless tool. Compared to our wetware, I'd liken it to our basic intuition. We are capable of anticipating the next word of a conversation or phrase unconsciously and I'd bet my arse that a similar system to LLMs is present in our brains and we just haven't recognized it yet. Many unconscious faculties of the brain feel awfully similar to AI beyond that too. Maybe we'll be able to create something that actually is conscious in the future, but AI right now is more like a mindless organism (like a cell) than a machine capable of consciousness.
>>17078250yep, this poster is retarded
>>17080758you fundamentally misunderstand the monkeys on typewriters analogy. monkeys on typewriters will only ever give you gibberish, the recreating shakesphere only happens when you introduce infinity into the equation. The analogy is a demonstration that reality breaks when you introduce infinity, not that monkeys on a type writer will ever give you anything but gibberish. LLM's are absolutely nothing like it. Please learn some basic probability theory this is science board for fucks sake.
>>17080797No, they didn't have to wait until they had infinite compute for LLMs to scale in intelligence like you would have to wait until you have infinite monkeys and infinite typewriters for that thought experiment to produce intelligible output.
>>17081150This analogy always felt extremely retarded to me. There are things that simply will not happen even if they run for eternity. Monkeys aren't required to output different gibberish each time, it's more likely that they'll just keep repeating the same gibberish for eternity.
>>17081150>monkeys on typewriters will only ever give you gibberish, the recreating shakesphere only happens when you introduce infinity into the equation.You're so imbecilic it blows my mind. Be sure to keep associating this level of mental retardation with the """AI""" agenda.
>>17081249Then at what finite number of monkeys do they start outputting actual words and what threshold of monkeys is needed to string those words together for sentences, paragraphs, chapters, and so forth?
>>17081252>at what finite number of monkeys do they start outputting actual wordsJust name a word and a deadline and I can calculate how many monkeys you need to get the job done with 99.99% probability. The same holds for phrases, books, anything you like. You really are a literal retard. I'm not even saying it as an insult at this point. It's a clinical observation.
>>17081256antidisestablishmentarianism in 1 second
>>17081258See >>17081256>You really are a literal retard. I'm not even saying it as an insult at this point. It's a clinical observation.
>>17081259ll I see is you failing to back up your claims.
>>17081265If you're over 80 IQ, you should be able to do it yourself. Do so in your next post. If your next post does not contain something approaching the right number, that'll be definite proof that you're brown and subhuman. Then I will calculate myself, just to show you how easy it is and cement your status as a subhuman.
>>17078250it really doesn't matter what you deem to be "intelligence" by definition, the only thing that matters and will matter is the huge outcome as a result of LLMs.
>>17081269>the only thing that matters and will matter is the huge outcome as a result of LLMs.That's correct and the outcome will be you and your entire family's extermination by your own corporate handlers.
>>17081267>you should be able to do it yourself.That isn't what you originally said, you said if I just gave you a word and a deadline that you could do it, thanks for proving you are a retarded liar, though.> Do so in your next post.I already did it in this post >>17081158> infinite monkeys and infinite typewriters for that thought experiment to produce intelligible output.>Then I will calculate myselfWhy didn't you just do that in the first place like you said you would? Don't forget to show your work and explain your equations.
>>17081275>confirms himself as a brown subhumanOk, then. 10^41 monkeys would get you that word with near certainty, orders of magnitude better than 99.99%. 10^40 would fall a bit short.
>>17081278>Don't forget to show your work and explain your equationsYou forgot, retard.
>>17081278So is a word and deadline that would be possible with less than 10^2 monkeys?
>>17081279>brown subhuman keeps doubling downThis is what the "AI" crowd consists of. Take note.
>>17081280You failed to ask anything coherent. You seem to be losing your mind with rage.
>>17081282Yes asking you to show your work, then you just shitting out some incoherent number, then reminding you to show your work is a valid way to double down.>>17081284It was coherent, what part did you fail to understand? Is there not any word given any amount of time that 10^2 monkeys could produce on typewriters? Its hard to tell since you are too retarded to show your work and give the equations you used to "calculate" such a conveniently round number.
>>17081286>subhuman brown monkey continues foaming at the mouthLOL. Go ask your imaginary "AI" friend to spoonfeed you. I literally don't consider you human. See >>17081267, >>17081278
>>17081289Ok, AI says it would take infinite monkey before any intelligible words are output and since you can't produce any equation or show your work while deferring to AI, I accept your concession.
>>17081295how many bananas do you think it would take to train a monkey to use ooman words?
>>17081302I don't understand. AI says it's impossible to train monkeys to use human words.
>>17081301>now you're claiming LLM "intelligence" is on par with...No, you "proved" that LLMs can be just as intelligent as the most intelligent people since you proved that even collective monkey intelligence could write even the highest IQ human novels over time.
>>17081309So are you changing your mind and saying a finite number of monkeys can't actually produce novels written by the highest IQ people or you still don't understand the implications of claiming that monkeys can write novels?
>>17081314I don't know why it's so funny watching you lose your mind and devolve into full-blown incoherence.
i love bananas
>>17081316Sure its definitely not the person mindless cackling about something they don't understand who has lost their mind.
>>17081322See >>17081267, >>17081278. You're a confirmed subhuman and your incoherent keyboard bashing only goes to demonstrate it in extra ways.
>>17081314>IQ IQ IQ IQ IQ IQ IQThis is getting a bit silly. Imagine putting this much importance on a shitty middle school test that can be cheesed and was created a million years ago.
>>17078250Then why is it so much more intelligent than you?
>if X is not intelligent why is it more intelligent than Y
>>17081327Tell it to OP, I am just the one pointing out that their are using IQ incoherently, not actually putting much importance on it.
>Tell it to OP, I am just the one pointing out that their are using IQ incoherently, not actually putting much importance on it.Mentally ill monkey can't even form coherent sentences anymore.
>>17081343>me is too stupid to identify common spelling mistakes like when someone types their instead of they
>>17080827What I talk with AI matters not. What matters is creative minds become uncreative. Plus, AI already having been trained on the academic data. It just compiles already existing work and publish it as a mindblowing discovery, with no referneces.This is literally plagiarism.
>>17079727The whole idea of consciousness requiring high intelligence was always a cope invented by meat eaters so they don’t feel like killers, and also by some old racists who didn’t like feeling bad for torturing nigger slaves. Any animal smarter then a worm most likely has consciousness.
>>17079727>You're confusing intelligence and consciousness.You're confusing your low IQ with insight.https://www.latin-is-simple.com/en/vocabulary/verb/4548/>1. to understand>2. to realizeThere is no understanding and realization without consciousness.
