I’ve seen this several times now; they’re treating the word-generating parrot like fucking Shalmaneser in Stand on Zanzibar, you literally see redd*tors posting comments that are basically “I asked ChatGPT what it thought about it and here…”.
“You’re mocking people who think AI is sentient, but here’s a made up story where it really is sentient! You’d look really stupid if you continued to deny the sentience of AI in this scenario I just made up. Stories cannot be anything but literal. Blade Runner is a literal prediction of the future.”
Wow, if things were different they would be different!
What if the partner was actually LLM based and had a large database of validating statements to draw from to affirm how senpai just totally owned UlyssesT there?
How does it feel to have so many rent free accommodations? It really is surprising the amount of reactionary bullshit that crops up here. Currently stuck in an argument with someone claiming that 1984 is actually a masterful thesis on propaganda and isn’t actually anti-USSR. There’s more pretzels in here than a bakery!
How does it feel to have so many rent free accommodations?
It takes me back to college where I roomed, went to class, and argued with lots of “leftist as they come, buuuuuuut” types that superficially wanted legal weed but otherwise delegated all ideas of improving society somewhat to billionaire grifters and whatever they were peddling that year (I still remember “E-L-O-N to Mars by 2020!” for example, and that was supposedly a conservative estimate that was challenged by bazinga optimists back in the early 2000s).
Just like the in this thread, their so-called leftism was more like “wanting nice things in the future” daydreaming that was actually loaded with contempt for common people and in some cases deep seething misanthropy in general.
Just about all of them became chuds by the time I graduated. Some work for the military industrial complex now. Others for the corporate surveillance state. I’m sure there’s still brittle flaked old stickers of “I want to change the world for the better” somewhere on their ideology, but it’s covered by armbands now.
Oh hey, did you see the new computer toucher who showed up to stan for the other computer toucher about how it’s actually smart and logical and full of science and facts to reference drop fucking Blade Runner, again?
It’s especially rich when they smugly talk about us superstitious barbarians believing in fairy tales while stanning that nakedly for their own blue curtained interpretations of their treats to the point that they cite the fiction as if it were grounded reality.
Movies could open with scrolling text that just tells you what the point of the film is and techbros would still think it’s about how LLMs are sentient.
They really are just evangelicals with a different coat of paint. Once the grift dies and President Only 99% Hitler takes office, I wonder how many of them will eagerly join the firing squads. Pseudoreligious delirium is a core part of fascist ideology after all, and these people seem to have a desperate need for it.
look, some of these posters are being maybe overly confrontational about this, but that blade runner point was basically entirely irrelevant. for one, the replicants in blade runner are mostly biological, more akin to edited clones than an algorithmic learning machine, definitely not a computer, and certainly nothing like a 2023 LLM chatbot. obviously a replicant could be conscious and sentient, as they are similar structurally to humans which are our one source of even somewhat reliable reports of subjectivity. but the film doesn’t really interrogate any of the fundamental technical philosophical ideas like subjectivity and identity, or whether Qualia are intrinsic or relational, it just assumes answers to those questions and lets the drama play out. another example, with Data in star trek, is not relevant either, because Data is made with unknown and fictitious technologies and scientific theories, which could hypothetically account for and replicate consciousness instead of simply information processing. but the data example did reference the argument that, to paraphrase, goes ‘if a machine was outwardly identical in behavior to humans, this is evidence that they are conscious or capable of subjectivity’, when in actuality we can not necessarily know this from outward behavior, asssuming that it is hypothetically possible for all of our behaviors to be accounted for with information processing alone (which is the reductionist physicalist take being criticised by me and some users here). just like a statistical model of language use will not reveal (or create) the definitions of the terms of the language analyzed, so too would a statistical model of human behavior not reveal (or create) the subjective experience of that behavior. to use another analogy, if i make a fully detailed model of a bladder on a computer, it will never produce real piss on my desk, no matter how detailed my algorithm may be. in the same way, if i make a fully detailed model of a brain on a computer, it will not produce real subjectivity. we can use computers to perform solely information processing tasks, we cannot use them to create subjectivity any more than we can use them to create piss.
Look, I like sapient robots, they’re cool, they’re some of my favorite characters, but they are not and almost certainly never will be anything but science fiction.
I’m not ruling out the possibility of sapient robots someday, especially if civilization lasts long enough to actually understand how organic brains work instead of just imitating one facet of what they do then smothering that facet in marketing hype and occult mysticism.
I’ve seen this several times now; they’re treating the word-generating parrot like fucking Shalmaneser in Stand on Zanzibar, you literally see redd*tors posting comments that are basically “I asked ChatGPT what it thought about it and here…”.
Like it has remotely any value. It’s pathetic.
They simply have to denigrate living human brains so their treat printers seem more elevated. More special.
One of them also cited fucking Blade Runner.
“You’re mocking people who think AI is sentient, but here’s a made up story where it really is sentient! You’d look really stupid if you continued to deny the sentience of AI in this scenario I just made up. Stories cannot be anything but literal. Blade Runner is a literal prediction of the future.”
Wow, if things were different they would be different!
You are all superstitious barbarians, whereas I get my logical rational tech prophecies from my treats
Wow I’m mad, I’m going to read your username aloud to my partner. I’m sure they won’t be weirded out by that at all and blankly stare at me.
What if the partner was actually LLM based and had a large database of validating statements to draw from to affirm how senpai just totally owned UlyssesT there?
How does it feel to have so many rent free accommodations? It really is surprising the amount of reactionary bullshit that crops up here. Currently stuck in an argument with someone claiming that 1984 is actually a masterful thesis on propaganda and isn’t actually anti-USSR. There’s more pretzels in here than a bakery!
It takes me back to college where I roomed, went to class, and argued with lots of “leftist as they come, buuuuuuut” types that superficially wanted legal weed but otherwise delegated all ideas of improving society somewhat to billionaire grifters and whatever they were peddling that year (I still remember “E-L-O-N to Mars by 2020!” for example, and that was supposedly a conservative estimate that was challenged by bazinga optimists back in the early 2000s).
Just like the
in this thread, their so-called leftism was more like “wanting nice things in the future” daydreaming that was actually loaded with contempt for common people and in some cases deep seething misanthropy in general.
Just about all of them became chuds by the time I graduated. Some work for the military industrial complex now. Others for the corporate surveillance state. I’m sure there’s still brittle flaked old stickers of “I want to change the world for the better” somewhere on their ideology, but it’s covered by armbands now.
Oh hey, did you see the new computer toucher who showed up to stan for the other computer toucher about how it’s actually smart and logical and full of science and facts to reference drop fucking Blade Runner, again?
It’s especially rich when they smugly talk about us superstitious barbarians believing in fairy tales while stanning that nakedly for their own blue curtained interpretations of their treats to the point that they cite the fiction as if it were grounded reality.
Movies could open with scrolling text that just tells you what the point of the film is and techbros would still think it’s about how LLMs are sentient.
They really are just evangelicals with a different coat of paint. Once the grift dies and President Only 99% Hitler takes office, I wonder how many of them will eagerly join the firing squads. Pseudoreligious delirium is a core part of fascist ideology after all, and these people seem to have a desperate need for it.
It is the same computer toucher (me). Talk to me if you want to talk to me, instead of running back to gossip with your friends.
you say wizards aren’t real and yet merlin made king arthur king
Removed by mod
look, some of these posters are being maybe overly confrontational about this, but that blade runner point was basically entirely irrelevant. for one, the replicants in blade runner are mostly biological, more akin to edited clones than an algorithmic learning machine, definitely not a computer, and certainly nothing like a 2023 LLM chatbot. obviously a replicant could be conscious and sentient, as they are similar structurally to humans which are our one source of even somewhat reliable reports of subjectivity. but the film doesn’t really interrogate any of the fundamental technical philosophical ideas like subjectivity and identity, or whether Qualia are intrinsic or relational, it just assumes answers to those questions and lets the drama play out. another example, with Data in star trek, is not relevant either, because Data is made with unknown and fictitious technologies and scientific theories, which could hypothetically account for and replicate consciousness instead of simply information processing. but the data example did reference the argument that, to paraphrase, goes ‘if a machine was outwardly identical in behavior to humans, this is evidence that they are conscious or capable of subjectivity’, when in actuality we can not necessarily know this from outward behavior, asssuming that it is hypothetically possible for all of our behaviors to be accounted for with information processing alone (which is the reductionist physicalist take being criticised by me and some users here). just like a statistical model of language use will not reveal (or create) the definitions of the terms of the language analyzed, so too would a statistical model of human behavior not reveal (or create) the subjective experience of that behavior. to use another analogy, if i make a fully detailed model of a bladder on a computer, it will never produce real piss on my desk, no matter how detailed my algorithm may be. in the same way, if i make a fully detailed model of a brain on a computer, it will not produce real subjectivity. we can use computers to perform solely information processing tasks, we cannot use them to create subjectivity any more than we can use them to create piss.
Quality post and I fully agree with it.
Look, I like sapient robots, they’re cool, they’re some of my favorite characters, but they are not and almost certainly never will be anything but science fiction.
I’m not ruling out the possibility of sapient robots someday, especially if civilization lasts long enough to actually understand how organic brains work instead of just imitating one facet of what they do then smothering that facet in marketing hype and occult mysticism.
LLMs are not it.
They think the people who want to hear from ChatGPT don’t know how to copy paste a post title on their own.