Home | Notifications | New Note | Local | Federated | Search | Logout
Note Detail
Reply to @meowski@fluf.club
Jezza™@jeremiah@shitposter.world (2026-09-23 06:46:12)
@meowski @Omega_Variant @cjd @nimrod @sun in my opinion, you are making a semantic argument, hinging on the fact that words like "reason" and "intelligence" are appearing in two very distinct domains. The confusion between those domains is mainly a product of marketing.
Neural nets are not equivalent to brains, statistical "learning" on neural nets is not equivalent to reasoning, and the whole of it is not intelligence.
---Reply---
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
---Replies---
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.