Home | Notifications | New Note | Local | Federated | Search | Logout
Note Detail
Reply to @jeremiah@shitposter.world
woodland creature@meowski@fluf.club (2026-09-23 06:49:55)
@jeremiah @Omega_Variant @cjd @nimrod @sun ok i didn't say AI was a brain, but brains *are* neural networks. it's more than semantics. also look at the definition of reason: "think, understand, and form judgements logically" the understand part is what's really in dispute. i would argue that understanding concepts is a requirement to engage in reasoning, and they demonstrate that ability.
forget about marketing. i'm looking at this purely from the perspective of what they can do. what useful work can they perform, based on my own experience.
---Reply---
Jezza™@jeremiah@shitposter.world (2026-09-23 06:53:33)
@meowski @Omega_Variant @cjd @nimrod @sun brains are not neural networks in the same way an ANN is. This is another semantic hinging case where the terms "neural" and "neuron" were chosen, even though there's only a basic conceptual similarity between organic brain neural systems and software neural networks. A digital neuron != a brain neuron, and an ANN != the brain.
From a pragmatic perspective, sure, these tools can do jobs that previous software systems could not do. Somewhat. With a great deal of supervision, overhead, catastrophic and comedic misfires, and eventually deskilling people.
Reply
---Replies---
Blurry Moon@sun@shitposter.world (2026-09-23 06:54:43)
@jeremiah @meowski @Omega_Variant @cjd @nimrod perceptrons are not neurons but you are splitting hairs that it's different so it doesn't learn, when it was designed to maintain the quality of learning, which it does.