Why would they "prove" something that's completely obvious?
The burden of proof is on the grifters who have overwhelmingly been making false claims and distorting language for decades.
this post was submitted on 08 Jun 2025
820 points (95.4% liked)
Technology
71318 readers
4493 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
They’re just using the terminology that’s widespread in the field. In a sense, the paper’s purpose is to prove that this terminology is unsuitable.
load more comments
(1 replies)
That's called science
load more comments
(5 replies)
No shit. This isn't new.
stochastic parrots. all of them. just upgraded “soundex” models.
this should be no surprise, of course!
This has been known for years, this is the default assumption of how these models work.
You would have to prove that some kind of actual reasoning capacity has arisen as... some kind of emergent complexity phenomenon.... not the other way around.
Corpos have just marketed/gaslit us/themselves so hard that they apparently forgot this.
load more comments
(2 replies)
Thank you Captain Obvious! Only those who think LLMs are like "little people in the computer" didn't knew this already.
load more comments
(3 replies)
Yah of course they do they’re computers
That's not really a valid argument for why, but yes the models which use training data to assemble statistical models are all bullshitting. TBH idk how people can convince themselves otherwise.
TBH idk how people can convince themselves otherwise.
They don’t convince themselves. They’re convinced by the multi billion dollar corporations pouring unholy amounts of money into not only the development of AI, but its marketing. Marketing designed to not only convince them that AI is something it’s not, but also that that anyone who says otherwise (like you) are just luddites who are going to be “left behind”.
load more comments
(2 replies)
I think because it's language.
There's a famous quote from Charles Babbage when he presented his difference engine (gear based calculator) and someone asking "if you put in the wrong figures, will the correct ones be output" and Babbage not understanding how someone can so thoroughly misunderstand that the machine is, just a machine.
People are people, the main thing that's changed since the Cuneiform copper customer complaint is our materials science and networking ability. Most things that people interact with every day, most people just assume work like it appears to on the surface.
And nothing other than a person can do math problems or talk back to you. So people assume that means intelligence.
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(2 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
Employers who are foaming at the mouth at the thought of replacing their workers with cheap AI:
🫢
load more comments
(2 replies)