Here we go again. The implication here is that the way AI generates its output is with human-like cognition. Which is untrue. "Cognitive capabilities humans have" is not the same is "outputs comparable to those of humans." www.theguardian.com/technology/2...
The problem is the users, but the tech really helps make mischief. framingthequestion.blog/2025/06/29/s...
Images In Spite of All, or Images in Spite of the Facts? Above: Mendel Grossman (1913-1945) takes a self-portrait. He chronicled the Lodz Ghetto until his deportation to Auschwitz; he is reported t…
I'm not an expert in the biology, but I heard that the whole model of neural nets that AI tech is based upon is quite a bit outdated compared to what we now know is going on in the brain/body. Not sure however. Bit like saying the AI does modern psychology because it mentions Jungain ideas.
Emotion has a strong influence on cognition. Ai replicates emotion but does not sense it. In that alone is a great gap of difference.
This article was a clear and accessible read on why there is no there there.
link.springer.com/article/10.1...
Recently, there has been considerable interest in large language models: machine learning systems which produce human-like text and dialogue. Applications of these systems have been plagued by persist...
"maybe in the next 5 or 10 years"
The irony is that these are probablistic models. So this statement conflates saying that such a model has a high probability of being correct with a low probability that it occurs. This is confusing to lay people, but incredibly lame to people who understand math.
"The implication here is that the way AI generates its output is with human-like cognition. Which is untrue." How do you know it is untrue? Are you an expert, in AI or neuroscience? The person you quote is, in both.
Yup. There are humans who have the cognitive abilities of a cabbage and I always assume that this is what the person, who thinks they are very clever with that sentence, actually means.
I have seen SO many interviews like this with AI/tech leaders, and not a single one where the interviewer says "Wait, let's burrow into that a bit." Is this perhaps a condition of such interviews?
I mean, this is not hard. "Consciousness" is a human cognitive capability. Will we have conscious AI within a decade?
It is frustrating that Hassabis keeps doing this because amongst the AI guys he's the only one with a PhD in neurobiology.
It's like they're trying to make a functionalist cogsci argument without really knowing what cogsci or functionalism is in the first place.
