this post was submitted on 04 Apr 2025
363 points (88.4% liked)

Technology

69392 readers
2675 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
363
Anthropic has developed an AI 'brain scanner' to understand how LLMs work and it turns out the reason why chatbots are terrible at simple math and hallucinate is weirder than you thought (www.pcgamer.com)
submitted 3 weeks ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
173 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[โ€“] [email protected] 1 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

I see the misunderstanding, sorry. You're still in the wrong though. while you weren't calling it thinking, the article certainly was. THAT'S why we're saying it's not. we're doing what you said we should, but it's the inverse, and you call it anti-AI. the jackass who wrote that article is jumping the gun and we're saying "how tf can you call it thinking" and i see your reply calling that anti AI, seems like a reasonable mistake ye?

[โ€“] [email protected] 1 points 3 weeks ago

But the comment I replied to didn't just deny the confirmation that AI is thinking, it also denied that AI "thinks" at all. That puts him in a position of making an unproven claim. In fact, he is directly making that claim, while the article he is denying only alludes to saying that LLM "thinks" like a human. That makes his unproven claim even more egregious than the article's.