LOOK MAA I AM ON FRONT PAGE

  • mfed1122@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    This sort of thing has been published a lot for awhile now, but why is it assumed that this isn’t what human reasoning consists of? Isn’t all our reasoning ultimately a form of pattern memorization? I sure feel like it is. So to me all these studies that prove they’re “just” memorizing patterns don’t prove anything other than that, unless coupled with research on the human brain to prove we do something different.

    • amelia@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      This. Same with the discussion about consciousness. People always claim that AI is not real intelligence, but no one can ever define what real/human intelligence is. It’s like people believe in something like a human soul without admitting it.

    • technocrit@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      why is it assumed that this isn’t what human reasoning consists of?

      Because science doesn’t work work like that. Nobody should assume wild hypotheses without any evidence whatsoever.

      Isn’t all our reasoning ultimately a form of pattern memorization? I sure feel like it is.

      You should get a job in “AI”. smh.

      • mfed1122@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 months ago

        Sorry, I can see why my original post was confusing, but I think you’ve misunderstood me. I’m not claiming that I know the way humans reason. In fact you and I are on total agreement that it is unscientific to assume hypotheses without evidence. This is exactly what I am saying is the mistake in the statement “AI doesn’t actually reason, it just follows patterns”. That is unscientific if we don’t know whether or “actually reasoning” consists of following patterns, or something else. As far as I know, the jury is out on the fundamental nature of how human reasoning works. It’s my personal, subjective feeling that human reasoning works by following patterns. But I’m not saying “AI does actually reason like humans because it follows patterns like we do”. Again, I see how what I said could have come off that way. What I mean more precisely is:

        It’s not clear whether AI’s pattern-following techniques are the same as human reasoning, because we aren’t clear on how human reasoning works. My intuition tells me that humans doing pattern following seems equally as valid of an initial guess as humans not doing pattern following, so shouldn’t we have studies to back up the direction we lean in one way or the other?

        I think you and I are in agreement, we’re upholding the same principle but in different directions.