fandomsecrets | [ SECRET POST #5973 ]

[ SECRET POST #5973 ]

⌈ Secret Post #5973 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.

__________________________________________________

02.

__________________________________________________

03.

__________________________________________________

04.

__________________________________________________

05.

__________________________________________________

06.

__________________________________________________

07.

Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 37 secrets from Secret Submission Post #854.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

I think the whole AI thing is stupid on it's face because it's NOT AI. It's just an algorithm and, while there may be overlap (stupidest tourist/smartest bear, etc), no algorithm is going to write as well as a middling fanfic author

I mean I don't see any reason this fundamentally *has* to be true. It's an article of faith.

(also, drawing a hard line between "AI" and "algorithms" seems.... difficult to justify, to me, to say the least)

I mean I don't see any reason this fundamentally *has* to be true. It's an article of faith.

(also, drawing a hard line between "AI" and "algorithms" seems.... difficult to justify, to me, to say the least)

Nor this either. To be an AI, as in to have it's own independent intelligence apart from what a human programs into it, is to have it's own desires. You could prompt an AI like you can prompt an author and it may or may not ignore you or tell you it doesn't want to, or that it doesn't like your idea, but if you're telling it to do something for you like a computer and it produces the requested results like a computer... that's not an AI, that's a computer algorithm.

Not... not really if you look into linguistics. Other human beings have a hard time differentiating the connotations of certain words and phrases (butt dial vs booty call), and it makes decoding ancient languages a pain in the ass. A computer doesn't even have the requisite frame of reference of being human.

Again, I don't see any reason that it *has* to be true that artificial systems are incapable of dealing with those obstacles. It's definitely *difficult* but I don't know what the argument is supporting the idea that artificial systems are philosophically incapable of understanding certain forms of language, or theoretically incapable of producing fiction that is as good as average fanfiction writers. It's true that they aren't capable of doing those things *now* but I don't get what the argument is that they will *never* be able to do those things. More advanced and well-developed systems could well be able to do that at some point in the future.

To be an AI, as in to have it's own independent intelligence apart from what a human programs into it, is to have it's own desires. You could prompt an AI like you can prompt an author and it may or may not ignore you or tell you it doesn't want to, or that it doesn't like your idea, but if you're telling it to do something for you like a computer and it produces the requested results like a computer... that's not an AI, that's a computer algorithm.

I don't see why volition is the necessary criterion for describing something as intelligent. And in fact, I would argue that it very much *shouldn't* be the criterion, because it's fundamentally unknowable in human beings. I do think it's at least philosophically possible to imagine an algorithm that can produce outputs that are indistinguishable from the output of human biological intelligence. That's the kind of thing that I have in mind that makes me think drawing a hard, bright line between "AI" and "algorithm" is difficult.

AYRT

That's fine if you don't see the reason. Not everyone is an expert in all things and I really don't want to take the time to hash out philosophy of mind and why all this is actually impossible. I wrote and defended a whole-assed thesis and I'm not looking to do it again.

if you wrote a whole thesis, you should have better arguments than this

Their arguments are fine. You're just talking about two different things.

This. And "well, but will it EVER be able to do this thing that I've had to concede it actually can't currently manage at all?" is actually a pretty weak argument.

DA You're waxing poetic about the potential future of technology and nature of identifying intelligence, which is not relevant to the ChatGPT-esque "AI" being discussed. Currently, there IS a hard line, and there will be for a great deal of time to come (and I say this as someone who adores philosophizing about AI in fiction).

It's a fun exercise, but not remotely helpful to present situations.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

[ SECRET POST #5973 ]

Re: AO3 drama development

Re: AO3 drama development

Re: AO3 drama development

Re: AO3 drama development

Re: AO3 drama development

Re: AO3 drama development

Re: AO3 drama development

Re: AO3 drama development