Brief Reflections On "Artificial Intelligence"

Because of my limited knowledge, I have chosen to present these as disconnected notes rather than a more organized essay. However, I have not seen many of these thoughts before, so I hope this short note adds something new to the ongoing discourse.

1. It’s not, really. Not intelligence, anyway. It doesn’t know truth from falsehood, or right from wrong.
2. The technologies that are called artificial intelligence, (diffusion models and large language models), are basically very large grammars. They seem to replicate part of brain visual and speech centers, but no other neurological functions.
3. In brain damaged people, there is a thing called confabulation. Confabulation is what happens when a damaged brain reaches for a memory and finds it’s not there. It just fills in the gaps. And I think that’s pretty much what an LLM does; it seems to be a replication of part of a brain but it has no real memory or logical capacity or ethics. A human author knows to fact check and not to plagiarize; a human artist knows to not to copy too closely. LLMs and diffusion models know neither of these things – only what word or line comes next. They are not minds, but only parts of minds.
4. “Mundus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur.” People want to believe these are intelligent. They want to believe so badly that they gloss over the flaws. This would not be a problem if the developers of LLMs and diffusion models did not overclaim so broadly, but of course they do – they want to sell them, or at least their output.
5. At the same time, they give a hint of what real AI might be capable of. LLMs know only language, and that only from typewritten text, but how very much of it they have taken as input! Few humans are as literate.
6. These technologies open up philosophical topics. Some philosophers have long argued that a part of human cognition is not, in fact, conscious at all, but simply automatic, and the successful construction of these models seems to argue for that view. One also, when one encounters a skillful orator who seems to have no ethics or connections with reality, now has to ask if this is in fact the result of thought, or simply putting together words in pleasing patterns. Uncomfortably, one may also ask how much apparently rational oration is in fact mindless. And, finally, it is now reasonable to speculate that such processes might necessarily be parts of whatever mind might be – that aliens might also have similar cognitive processes.