What kind of fluff "journalism" is this?
this post was submitted on 25 Apr 2025
152 points (85.2% liked)
Not The Onion
15992 readers
1759 users here now
Welcome
We're not The Onion! Not affiliated with them in any way! Not operated by them in any way! All the news here is real!
The Rules
Posts must be:
- Links to news stories from...
- ...credible sources, with...
- ...their original headlines, that...
- ...would make people who see the headline think, “That has got to be a story from The Onion, America’s Finest News Source.”
Please also avoid duplicates.
Comments and post content must abide by the server rules for Lemmy.world and generally abstain from trollish, bigoted, or otherwise disruptive behavior that makes this community less fun for everyone.
And that’s basically it!
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
152
One of the stupidest things I've heard.
I also would like to attach the bluesky repost I found this from:
https://bsky.app/profile/leyawn.bsky.social/post/3lnldekgtik27
thanks. my first thought was, "are you fucking kidding me?"
but this is what all the money wants us to think about "AI", which is definitely not intelligence. they want everyone to accept that pattern recognition is indistinguishable from intelligence.
edit - alcohol makes me talk in cicles
It sucks but they do have an audience. I have older family members who swear ChatGPT has a “personality” because it will reply when they thank it.
The pride of cancelling my 20 year subscription continues to swell.
I wish ads felt pain when I skipped them
Wow, and in the NYT no less. This will make a lot of people a lot more stupid. I guess the AI grift needs to go on for a while longer.
I really wonder what's going on in the editors minds here.
The entire premise of the article is "All experts say no, but I think yes" - why would anyone about any topic publish this? If it would be an actual debate, maybe some contrarian but actual experts arguing in favor of sentience, you could get into an argument here. But this article is blatant science denial. Climate change deniers and antivaxxers use the exact same approach "facts say X, but my feelings say Y".
I guess articles like this create high engagement, they are the very definition of rage-bait.
What's saddening is the complete lack of integrity on every level of the publisher. Surely they must know that this is blatant misinformation, but they just don't care.
Stuff like this does have consequences, it shapes the discussion and leads to bad decisions and outcomes. But like in so many instances, everyone is fine with it as long as they can convince themselves that they won't be affected by the results of their own actions.
It shows that the East Coast metropolitan elite that is the source of most top-line journalists is collectively pig-ignorant about tech matters. NYT's tech coverage is mainly puff pieces tracking the hype cycle of the tech du jour. I've never seen anything insightful from them. It's like listening to lawyers discuss tech. Without my iron self-control, there would have been so many defenestrations.
We can't even give humans human rights. AI will have to get in line.
Do humans deserve human rights? A more relevant debate.
I wonder if Gemma is actually a white man
It is saddly common for LLMs to be racist and biased against people of color so maybe they are all secretly white racist males
They don't have them so...
Ok so: Measure of a Man is one of my all time favorite Star Trek episodes, but come the fuck on. We are so, so far away from that. Maybe worry more about humans, right now, and the world we live in, instead of some nebulous fucking future that we won’t even goddamn reach if we don’t pay attention to, you know, humans and the world we live in.
Does my phone feel pain when I drop it?
Why don't you ask it?
Before we even get close to have this discussion, we would need to have an AI capable of experiencing things and developing an individual identity. And this goes completely opposite of the goals of corporations that develop AIs because they want something that can be mass deployed, centralised, and as predictable as possible - i.e. not individual agents capable of experience.
If we ever have a truly sentient AI it's not going to be designed by Google, OpenAI, or Deepmind.
Yep, an AI can’t really experience anything if it never updates the weights during each interaction.
Training is simply too slow for AI to be properly intelligent. When someone cracks that problem, I believe AGI is on the horizon.
AGI?
Artificial General Intelligence, or basically something that can properly adapt to whatever situation it’s put into. AGI isn’t necessarily smart, but it is very flexible and can learn from experience like a person can.
"Does autocorrect cry when I don't use its corrections?"
Can our AI fall in love with a human? Scientists laughed at me when I asked them but I found this weird billionaire to pay me to have sex with his robot.
If we lose perspective that computer systems are machines, we're fucked. Stop personifying computer systems just because they make you feel things. JFC.
"Many of you feel bad for this lamp. That is because you crazy [sic]. It has no feelings..."
These are the same type of people who believed ELIZA to be sentient.
I have a preconceived conclusion about my anthropomorphized view of a statistical model with some heuristics around it. People who know what they're talking about say I'm wrong, but I need an idea for an article to write that people will read.
So… the headline answered the question and people still read the article?
I know from the way it looks at me that my spreadsheet loves me.
Gemini in it's current form? No, but it is a fair question to ask for the future
Yeah, twenty years from now at the very least.
A little too optimistic
Yeah, but it's like fusion. It's always 20 years away for the last 60 years.
Realistically, as a dev who watched AI develop from cheap parlor tricks to very expensive and ecosystem crunching fancy parlor tricks that mangers think will replace all of their expensive staff who actually know how to design and create:
Modern "AI" is fundamentally incapable of actual thought. They are very advanced and impressive statistical engines, but the technology is incapable of thinking at a fundamental level.
I don't see any reason why this can't be discussed. I think people here are just extremely anti AI. It is almost like forcing AI on people was a bad idea.
i don't even understand why it's worth discussing in the first place. "can autocomplete feel?" "should compilers form unions?" "should i let numpy rest on weekends?"
wake me up when what the marketers call "ai" becomes more than just matrix multiplication in a loop.
If it a broad discussion of intelligence then I could see it.
I do agree that we are no where close anything that resembles actual intelligence
I think there's a useful discussion for why these technologies can be effective at getting people to connect with them emotionally, but they themselves don't experience emotions any more than a fictional character in a book experiences emotion.
Our mental model of them can, but the physical representation is just words. In the book I'm reading there was a brutal torture scene. I felt bad for the character, but if there was an actual being experiencing that kind of torment, making and reading the book would be horrendously unethical.
Nobody forced it on anybody. My work uses gdocs, I just never turned Gemini on. Easy.
Everybody poops
This could potentially be a concept in 100 years but is a stupid question for now.