What's wrong about the statement? The black box algorithm might have been generated by machine learning, but it's still a computer program in the end.

▲

woopsn 18 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

A provocative aside in bad faith, anyway a completely minor point within the overall post, which some of the people he's telling to fuck off might have read

▲

km3r an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

Because it's so entirely reductive and misunderstanding of where the technology has progressed. Hello world is s computer program. So it Microsoft Windows. New levels of "intelligence" unlock with greater complexity of a program.

Like look at our brains. We know decently well how a single neuron works. We can simulate a single one with "just a computer program". But clearly with enough layers some form of complexity can emerge, and at some level that complexity becomes intelligence.

▲

andsoitis an hour ago | parent [-]

> with enough layers some form of complexity can emerge, and at some level that complexity becomes intelligence.

It isn’t a given that complexity begets intelligence.

▲

DiogenesKynikos 17 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

But in the case of both biological and computer neurons, it is an empirical fact that complexity has led to intelligence.

▲

PaulDavisThe1st an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

and it isn't a given that it doesn't, so maybe a little openness towards the possibility is warranted?

▲

andsoitis 44 minutes ago | parent [-]

I’m open, but the comment I responded to asserted: “complexity becomes intelligence”, as if it is a fact. And it isn’t proven.

▲

DiogenesKynikos 17 minutes ago | parent [-]

We have LLMs, which are obviously intelligent. How is it not proven?

	▲	PaulDavisThe1st 15 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		There is no "obvious" about it, unless you define "intelligent" in a rather narrow (albeit Turing-esque) way. The suspicion is that they are good at predicting next-token and not much else. This is still a research topic at this point, from my reading.