Post by @Carnelian@lemmy.world

2026-04-06 18:31 UTC

Do you think you’re helping the situation in any way by cobbling together random unrelated memories from a decade ago with unsubstantiated proclamations about the state of the modern industry? Bro literally just said computers do not possess cognition or the ability to perform research, and you retorted with a list of qualifications implying that educated people believe the opposite. But instead of actually furthering your position you’re just making broad statements about how nobody can possibly understand the technology, or the brain itself, because they are too complicated. Buddy. Nobody understands the complexities of physics enough to fully explain the myriad of processes and byproducts responsible for and resulting from the combustion of gasoline. Yet here we live all the same, in defiance of our ignorance, with working cars and shady car salesmen making specific false marketing claims about their vehicles. Literally it’s the same as if someone said cars don’t have full self driving and you retorted by saying you worked at Toyota (leaving out how you left that job ten years ago) and furthermore nobody even understands how humans make driving decisions. Then calling everyone else out for their “uninformed assumptions” as if you didn’t just perform the conversational equivalent of crashing your vehicle into a parked car

Replies (1)

@realitista@lemmus.org 2026-04-06 19:17

I mean, the proof is in the pudding. Go ask Google Gemini to do some research on a topic you know something about and check it's work. The result will be somewhere below expert level and above the abilities of a large portion of the population to do that research themselves. If you want some proof, go ask random kids you didn't really know that well in high school to do the same research. Many of them will fail. If you are relatively intelligent, I'm sure you know which ones it will be too. The reason I know that these randos on the internet don't know how modern AI's work is because the experts also don't know (I still work with many of them). They know how they constructed the algorithms which construct the neural networks, but they don't really understand how the neural networks themselves are composed or work (though progress is being made here) To take your gasoline analogy, it's as if someone comes along and says "gasoline can never explode, it just kind of barely burns". While, you, who work in the field and know a bit about stoichiometry, know how to mix it with air, compress it and combust it. You cannot explain to him what exactly is happening on the molecular level, but you know he's wrong because you've worked in the field enough to know how to use it to produce useful results, and you have worked with the experts that created the stochiometric equations that prove it.

Open ##1314382