• echo64@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    8 months ago

    If Ais were capable of invention and creation, I might agree. But they aren’t. They regurgitate what they are modeled on.

    We don’t teach AIs, they don’t learn, there’s no university, there’s no fundamentals. We just have models that reproject. They take the training data, mix it all up, and then project it out again.

    There is use to that, but gpt isn’t a child. It can not learn, comprehend, or understand. It’s a tool, and as a tool, it depends heavily on the work created by others.

        • Jozzo@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          8 months ago

          You cant really compare like that, learning is an input and regurgitating is an output.

          Humans learn and regurgitate much the same as an AI learns and regurgitates.

          A human can only output things based on input it’s received in the past. Try imagining a new color. Any color you could possibly come up with is just some combination of colors that already exist. By painting with purple are you not “regurgitating” the work of red and blue?

      • Sneezycat@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        8 months ago

        Okay so according to your logic, it is impossible for us to have this conversation. No human could’ve invented those things, therefore they can’t exist.

        Or are you saying humans can learn, but our capacity for that is greatly amplified by the knowledge humanity gave us?

        If it’s the latter, yeah, we’re standing on the shoulders of giants. But AI is fundamentally different, that’s the point of the comment above.

        AI could never in however many million years get to the point humanity has gotten to, because we humans learn, and AIs don’t. They would stagnate without humans even if they could train from each other.