- cross-posted to:
- technology@lemmy.ml
- technology@lemmy.world
- science@lemmy.world
- cross-posted to:
- technology@lemmy.ml
- technology@lemmy.world
- science@lemmy.world
We are constantly fed a version of AI that looks, sounds and acts suspiciously like us. It speaks in polished sentences, mimics emotions, expresses curiosity, claims to feel compassion, even dabbles in what it calls creativity.
But what we call AI today is nothing more than a statistical machine: a digital parrot regurgitating patterns mined from oceans of human data (the situation hasnāt changed much since it was discussed here five years ago). When it writes an answer to a question, it literally just guesses which letter and word will come next in a sequence ā based on the data itās been trained on.
This means AI has no understanding. No consciousness. No knowledge in any real, human sense. Just pure probability-driven, engineered brilliance ā nothing more, and nothing less.
So why is a real āthinkingā AI likely impossible? Because itās bodiless. It has no senses, no flesh, no nerves, no pain, no pleasure. It doesnāt hunger, desire or fear. And because there is no cognition ā not a shred ā thereās a fundamental gap between the data it consumes (data born out of human feelings and experience) and what it can do with them.
Philosopher David Chalmers calls the mysterious mechanism underlying the relationship between our physical body and consciousness the āhard problem of consciousnessā. Eminent scientists have recently hypothesised that consciousness actually emerges from the integration of internal, mental states with sensory representations (such as changes in heart rate, sweating and much more).
Given the paramount importance of the human senses and emotion for consciousness to āhappenā, there is a profound and probably irreconcilable disconnect between general AI, the machine, and consciousness, a human phenomenon.
I used to think āitās just predicting the next word, I canāt possibly be intelligent the way I amā But more and more I think thatās pretty much all I do. Try playing a quiz game, like jeopardy. When the question is up all I do is predict the most likely next word to be the answer.
I donāt think there is anything special about consciousness or thinking. If it produces the same results we do⦠maybe itās not doing something special, just that we are less special than we thought.
In your statement, you provided much more self-awareness and abstract thought than an LLM, by its nature, is capable of. They are not intelligent.
I donāt disagree that whatās going on in our meat computers (simplification) isnāt terribly special, in the grand scheme of things. And, thereās little reason that similar processes and results canāt be realized in other media. But, LLMs, by themselves, will never be capable of it because of their innate characteristics. Brains have numerous specialized structures that are networked together, so, probably the best bet would be building systems that can fullfill similar functions, and connect them.
The products currently on the marketplace have architectures that are far more sophisticated than just an LLM. Even something as simple as āDeep Research,ā which both Anthropic and Claude have available, is using multiple interconnected systems to provide a single response.
Consider Agentic AI, like Claude Code, where theyāre using tools, analyzing the results of those tools, iterating, possibly calling out to MCP servers to do other things, etc⦠The tools allow them to do things like read or modify files in the working directory, execute programs (i.e., your linter, installing dependencies, running your app), querying against your app itself, and so on.
And of course note that the single āClaudeā box in that diagram has an architecture thatās more sophisticated than just being an LLM. At minimum, consumer facing LLMs generally have a supervisor that censors problematic inputs and outputs; this doesnāt make the system more competent but the same concept can be applied to any other sort of transparent wrapper.
It seems to me that we already have consumer systems that are doing what you described, and weāre already working on enhancing their architectures further.
@cm0002 why? weāre still pretending humans are intelligent