• KᑌᔕᕼIᗩ
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Not at all, you’re just continually dismissing the point.

    An insect doesn’t need an actual intelligent being to understand the information being used and to control it or use it, unlike ChatGPT. The latter is just a glorified calculator compared to a living intelligent being.

    • pixelscript
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Your assertions are tautological.

      An insect is an example of intelligence because it is an intelligent being.

      An AI is not an example of intelligence because it is not an intelligent being.

      And also because it requires another intelligent being to… use… it…? Huh? What do the method by which an AI receives its stimuli and the effects of its responses matter? Such details are external set dressing.

      You could just as well slice out an insect’s brain, hook it up to some electrodes, and query it the same way you would ChatGPT. Alternatively, a sufficiently trained AI contained in some hypothetical form factor that could be grafted to the nervous system of an insect would pilot that insect body just as well. No AI we have now is so advanced, but that’s a scale issue, not a principle issue.

      The latter is just a glorified calculator compared to a living intelligent being.

      I don’t understand how this runs counter to my argument. The living being is itself a glorified calculator. What is the difference, other than scale?