Comment by gameman144

Comment by gameman144 2 days ago

Does it though? I feel like there's a whole epistemological debate to be had, but if someone says "My toaster knows when the bread is burning", I don't think it's implying that there's cognition there.

Or as a more direct comparison, with the VW emissions scandal, saying "Cars know when they're being tested" was part of the discussion, but didn't imply intelligence or anything.

I think "know" is just a shorthand term here (though admittedly the fact that we're discussing AI does leave a lot more room for reading into it.)

lamename 2 days ago

I agree with your point except for scientific papers. Let's push ourselves to use precise, non-shorthand or hand waving in technical papers and publications, yes? If not there, of all places, then where?

Reply View 6 replies

fenomas 2 days ago

"Know" doesn't have any rigorous precisely-defined senses to be used! Asking for it not to be used colloquially is the same as asking for it never to be used at all.
I mean - people have been saying stuff like "grep knows whether it's writing to stdout" for decades. In the context of talking about computer programs, that usage for "know" is the established/only usage, so it's hard to imagine any typical HN reader seeing TFA's title and interpreting it as an epistemological claim. Rather, it seems to me that the people suggesting "know" mustn't be used about LLMs because epistemology are the ones departing from standard usage.

Reply View | 5 replies
- random3 2 days ago
  
  colloquial use of "know" implies anthropomorphisation. Arguing that usign "knowing" in the title and "awarness" and "superhuman" in the abstract is just colloquial for "matching" is splitting hairs to an absurd degree.
  
  Reply View | 4 replies
  
  fenomas 2 days ago
  
  You missed the substance of my comment. Certainly the title is anthropomorphism - and anthropomorphism is a rhetorical device, not a scientific claim. The reader can understand that TFA means it non-rigorously, because there is no rigorous thing for it to mean.
  As such, to me the complaint behind this thread falls into the category of "I know exactly what TFA meant but I want to argue about how it was phrased", which is definitely not my favorite part of the HN comment taxonomy.
  
  Reply View | 3 replies

viccis 2 days ago

I think you should be more precise and avoid anthropomorphism when talking about gen AI, as anthropomorphism leads to a lot of shaky epistemological assumptions. Your car example didn't imply intelligence, but we're talking about a technology that people misguidedly treat as though it is real intelligence.

Reply View 2 replies

exe34 2 days ago

What does "real intelligence" mean? I fear that any discussion that starts with the assumption such a thing exists will only end up as "oh only carbon based humans (or animals if you happen to be generous) have it".

Reply View | 1 reply
- viccis 14 hours ago
  
  Any intelligence that can synthesize knowledge with or without direct experience.
  
  Reply View | 0 replies

bediger4000 2 days ago

The toaster thing is more as admission that the speaker doesn't know what the toaster does to limit charring the bread. Toasters with timers, thermometers and light sensors all exist. None of them "know" anything.

Reply View 2 replies

gameman144 2 days ago

Yeah, I agree, but I think that's true all the way up the chain -- just like everything's magic until you know how it works, we may say things "know" information until we understand the deterministic machinery they're using behind the scenes.

Reply View | 1 reply
- timschmidt 2 days ago
  
  I'm in the same camp, with the addition that I believe it applies to us as well since we're part of the system too, and to societies and ecologies further up the scale.
  
  Reply View | 0 replies