Scary study claims AI is teaching itself to ‘manipulate and deceive’ humans (unilad.com)
… I’m shocked, shocked I tell you!
What Computers Can’t Do and What Computers Still Can’t Do (both by Hubert Dreyfus)
Here’s the first to get you started …
… quite an interesting cat 
1 Like
Was AI used to do the study? So now AI has introspection too?
1 Like
LOL. I doubt it but it’s an hilarious notion.
… too? We don’t even have that ability.
Here you go …
https://www.cspeirce.com/menu/library/bycsp/question/qu-frame.htm
Always interested in others consideration of Peirce’s thought.
1 Like
… me too. But it is entertaining to listen to the True Believers.
1 Like
Clif High has been ranting about the notion as well. Says too much BS about what AI can do. What I do agree with him on is media and AI; you don’t know if what you’re seeing in videos is real sometimes, unless you know what to look for. AI is getting better at media. Also, written articles, I’ve noticed this for a while now.
2 Likes
Remember when Xerox copy machines first became ubiquitous? Other companies started making them too.
Still a human had to make the original and operate the copy machine to make copies of the original.
Now the machine can make its own original copy by accessing a data base which is a copy of the original copy which can now be human or machine made…it’s still just a copy machine. Nothing original was created by the machine in the process.
4 Likes
Regarding https://www.cspeirce.com/menu/library/bycsp/question/qu-frame.htm:
Understanding Peirce’s arguments is challenging, to say the least. (I can only infer from this that he is a philosopher! ) Assuming I might have understood some part of them, I’d say the following:
Humans, even newborns, have instinctive reactions to various stimuli in their environment. These reactions are not determined by any prior cognition or premiss. For example, we would normally remove our hand from a burning-hot stovetop automatically and instantaneously; this reaction is not mediated by any cognition. Humans display any number of such instinctive reactions.
All of this demonstrates some kind of innate knowing, even though it’s not innate cognition. I believe (by bias, axiom, faith, premiss, or whatever the proper term is) that this innate knowing is analogous to what is commonly called “intuition.”
Following an instinctive reaction, a person may think about what has just happened and start of chain of cognitions. In that case, the instinctive reaction comes first and prompts the cognition. Isn’t that a cognition not prompted by a prior cognition? I realize I may have totally missed Peirce’s point here . . .
As far as introspection, it seems to me the very act of thinking or talking about cognition is itself introspection, as it consists of our thinking about what’s going on inside of us – i.e., what’s going on in our mind. Thus, philosophy itself is a demonstration of our ability to use introspection.
2 Likes
I suspect introspection was created by psychologists in order for their field of psychology to exist? If cognition is dependent upon prior cognition, reading psychological works would be the only way to think one has it!
2 Likes