How about an echo of intelligence, as it rederived from intelligent signals.
this post was submitted on 23 Sep 2026
34 points (75.0% liked)
No Stupid Questions
49905 readers
484 users here now
No such thing. Ask away!
!nostupidquestions is a community dedicated to being helpful and answering each others' questions on various topics.
The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:
Rules (interactive)
Rule 1- All posts must be legitimate questions. All post titles must include a question.
All posts must be legitimate questions, and all post titles must include a question. Questions that are joke or trolling questions, memes, song lyrics as title, etc. are not allowed here. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.
Rule 2- Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.
Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.
Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.
Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.
Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.
That's it.
Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.
Questions which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.
Rule 6- Regarding META posts and joke questions.
Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-question posts using the [META] tag on your post title.
On fridays, you are allowed to post meme and troll questions, on the condition that it's in text format only, and conforms with our other rules. These posts MUST include the [NSQ Friday] tag in their title.
If you post a serious question on friday and are looking only for legitimate answers, then please include the [Serious] tag on your post. Irrelevant replies will then be removed by moderators.
Rule 7- You can't intentionally annoy, mock, or harass other members.
If you intentionally annoy, mock, harass, or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.
Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.
Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.
Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.
Let everyone have their own content.
Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here. This includes using AI responses and summaries.
Credits
Our breathtaking icon was bestowed upon us by @Cevilia!
The greatest banner of all time: by @TheOneWithTheHair!
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
Considering Meta just got caught using contractors to make phone calls for their "AI" that can make phone calls and make reservations. It's people making the phone calls. It's people fixing the bad answers.
It's Actually (underpaid) Indians
AI isn’t any one thing. It’s an broad term used in computer science to refer to any system designed to perform a cognitive task that would normally require human intelligence. The chess opponent on an old Atari console is an AI. It’s an intelligent system - but only narrowly so. That’s called “narrow” or “weak” AI.
It can still have superhuman abilities, but only within the specific task it was built for - like playing chess or generating language.
A large language model like ChatGPT is also narrow AI. It’s exceptionally good at what it was designed to do: generate natural-sounding language. What people expect from it, though, isn’t narrow intelligence - it’s general intelligence. The ability to apply cognitive skills across a wide range of domains the way a human can. That’s something LLMs simply can’t do - at least not yet. Artificial General Intelligence is the end goal for many AI companies, but LLMs are not generally intelligent. However they still fall under the umbrella of AI as a broad category of systems.
No since the problematic word is "intelligence."
Just say LLM
nah, abbreviations are honestly kinda stupid...
everyone abbreviates as much as they can with as much stuff as they can, and you end up in dumb scenarios where you're constantly asking people to define their abbreviations rendering them frustrating and useless
Ok just say "large language model"
It's more descriptive of what it actually is? It's not intelligence, so "counterfeit intelligence" is just as bad.
And yeah when it's random ass abbreviations that's valid, but when it's "LLM" which is in every single news cycle, not as much of a problem... especially if you are on a site like lemmy. No one is going to ask you.
Poorly simulated intelligence?
You think the problem with the term is...the first word?
no, but it drives a point home rather then just calling it shit
I think its clearer to say language models
If you're going to change some part of the name, I think "intelligence" is the part you should be focused on
I don’t know. SI does actually have a certain ring to it. Stolen Intelligence.
Well, the words "artificial" and "counterfeit" both mean "fake," so the accuracy would be the same.
personally I think it's more accurate to call it either a "pattern identifier" or "random word generator"
Random? No. Probabilistic.
it's inherently random, though, because it is working with things that have meanings and it cannot understand what the meanings are.
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
I agree that LLMs do not understand what it is they are predicting. At least no more than any other computer program "understands" its output. Which is to say: they are not conscious beings experiencing things.
This doesn't mean LLM output is random. It means they aren't thinking persons. You may have confused random with non-deterministic. LLMs are complex guessing machines that require a fudge-factor to produce meaningfully useful output. If the guesses were fully random then they'd have a significantly narrower field of practical applications.
I just don't understand why you think it needs to be "fully random" to be called random, when the output is in fact random. To me, when you can ask it the same question multiple times and receive different answers, it's random and unreliable. You may argue it only changes its answer randomly 10% of the time or whatever- it's still random. It doesn't matter if it only answers incorrectly 10% of the time or 5% of the time. Every time the answer is unreliable, because sometimes it changes its answer for no reason.
You don't understand because you're either not paying attention or because you're trolling.
Random would be output like this:
Ostrich maypole dandy ironic. Great cucumber zebra!
Or this:
fhsjarbskzkdbsjzb kOdbg zkakfiebwkl
Random would be a password generator. Random would be utter nonsense. Incoherent. That's not what LLMs produce.
Still not random. Also not "intelligence" at all.
That depends on your definition of "random". They're non-deterministic; the same inputs will produce multiple outputs, and I think that's the point.
So, it depends whether you're referring to most people's definition of "random" or a mathematician's, because they often differ. One characteristic of "true randomness" (as defined in mathematical terms) is that eventually, by accident, patterns emerge. When people inevitably notice these patterns, the system appears less random.
Systems that check ahead for such patterns and adjust outcomes to avoid them are called "pseudo-random". Even though the outcomes are carefully calculated, they're perceived as being more random because they lack patterns.
Notable examples I can think of off the top of my head are Diablo 3 and the official Risk mobile app.
In Diablo 3, the drop tables started off using a truly random number generator. Some players noticed long stretches of no legendary drops, other players saw multiple legendaries in a row. People complained the drops were "rigged", so Blizzard altered the algorithm to be pseudo-random and players stopped ccomplaining. Now, if a certain amount of time goes by and you haven't had a legendary drop, you're guaranteed one. Once a legendary drops, you're guaranteed NOT to have one for a certain amount of time.
With Risk, same story with the dice rolling algorithm; players abjectly refused to accept the outcomes were random, despite the devs adding functionality to count your dice rolls and every players' showed a perfectly uniform distribution.
A mathematician would agree that an LLM isn't random because the next node in the chain is determined by the current nodes. But, since the algorithm won't generate the same output every time it's provided identical input (like a calculator), that satisfies most people's definition of the word "random".
Bold claim considering there is no agreed upon definition on what we even mean by the term intelligence.
- The ability to acquire, understand, and use knowledge.
- the ability to learn or understand or to deal with new or trying situations
- the ability to apply knowledge to manipulate one's environment or to think abstractly as measured by objective criteria (such as tests)
- the act of understanding
- the ability to learn, understand, and make judgments or have opinions that are based on reason
- It can be described as the ability to perceive or infer information; and to retain it as knowledge to be applied to adaptive behaviors within an environment or context.
Interestingly, modern "AI" fits none of those definitions, either.
Guess what else heavily relies on pattern recognition and probabilities? Humans.
Except most of us suck at it. Very few of us are really good at it.
But it's true, AI models make the same stupid mistakes humans do, are are convinced those mistakes are truth and reality... and are unable to error correct when corrected or given new information
Abominable intelligence.
🤷
I'm going to start doing it anyway.
Several answers touch on this already. "Intelligence" is a very flattering "magic" feeling that doesn't really explain what is happening with LLMs.
Probablistic/Statistical weights are heavily involved here. But it feels "intelligent" because of a combination with ever-expanding processing/computational speed and power that can be thrown at the prompts. Things that were previously limited to on-site super computers can now be accessed via the internets/online services.
It's worth noting also that dynamic "seeding", such as via on-demand searches can contribute to better/worse context resolution.
AI is the common speak for large language model querying (with all the above, plus other details), in mind. So, Probablistic Inferencing (at) Super Speed (i.e. "PISS") seems about right to me!
I feel like we should better differentiate between LLMs (the ones that literally tell you to eat rocks), generative models (the ones that are stealing the work of creatives without permission), and the ones that are actually used for neat science stuff, where they are trained on a specific set of data and are doing a specific set of tasks repeatedly in a controlled environment, rather than training on the entire internet and then some and trying to do everything!
I think we should label them as large language models, generative models, and predictive models (maybe? Or maybe "targeted predictive models"?). It's important to emphasise that all of these, even the useful ones, are not intelligent, they do not understand what they are doing. They are just models of data that do thing go in, thing go out.
I think the entire field of AI (not just the generative AI subset) should've been called "simulated intelligence" or something like that. It points to the goal of the field (i.e. to achieve something similar to intelligence) without the implicit claim that any of the contributions achieve true intelligence.
It's accurate to call AI in it's current state "a toddler who knows how to google and read pretty well"
You can even say that to AI and they will agree with it
No, no it is not accurate. At all. A toddler knows meaning behind words. Not too many words, but most toddlers understand there is connection outside of, "this other word likely follows this word". LLMs do not. They have no concept of meaning. They have no concepts at all.
If you dig into what we know about human brains, you might find out we aren't that different. We come up with words based on the previous words just like processing tokens.
We may have a better model, and more advanced hard(wet)ware but it's still very much a predictive process based on context.
lol no, no there is no equivalence between associating words with actual things and deriving further words, and calculating the likelihood of words appearing after other words. At all.
ah, Clearly you have the superior brain. Smarter than all the doctors who study this shit.
Good for you, I hope you get the Nobel Prize for Medicine for enlightening the world on how the human brain actually works.
lol
I speak knowing more than you. I'm also talking about "AI". You bet your ass I know more about LLMs and other types of "AI" than the vast majority of doctors, including those with doctorates in computer science.