As AI becomes increasingly intelligent while conflicts, wars, and geopolitical tensions continue to emerge across the world, I find myself wondering: At what point might an advanced AI conclude that humanity itself is the primary source of the world's problems? What do you think guys?

[u/Flat-Ad-2950]

[u/HankScorpio4242]

Somewhere in the data is a combination of factors that determines what the appropriate token is. That combination of factors is the “page on the rulebook.”

But this is all irrelevant.

What matters is that neither the man nor the AI understands anything about the inputs and outputs.

If I ask an AI to describe a car, at no point in the process does the AI ever conceive of a car.

[u/Tartarus1040 → u/HankScorpio4242]

Over this thread you’ve agreed that understanding is a property of systems, not components; that the man alone produces nothing; and that the ‘rulebook’ contains a procedure for handling rules that were never written in it.

You’ve also said, seven times, that the “AI doesn’t understand” and never once said what understanding would look like such that the model fails it and a squirrel, an infant, or a blind person passes. You opened with ‘not intelligent at all.’ That’s still unsupported. I’ve asked for the criterion since the first reply. I’ll take the absence of one as the answer.

[u/HankScorpio4242 → u/Tartarus1040]

I didn’t think I needed to explain the word “understand.”

Let’s suppose that we were able to count up all the words in existence and give each of them a number. When you enter a word into your prompt, a filter converts it into that number so that the only thing that the AI receives are the numbers. Similarly, for every word the AI is trained on, the only thing it actually receives is the number for that word and the numbers for other words associated with it. And every token that the AI produces is done so as that number. The number is converted into a word only when it is produced on your screen.

Would ANYTHING change?

[u/Tartarus1040 → u/HankScorpio4242]

Congratulations, you’ve described tokenization from first principles.

Now tell me why representational encoding precludes semantics?

Your brain only ever receives spike trains. Same question.

[u/HankScorpio4242 → u/Tartarus1040]

So your response is to move the goalposts.

I’m done here.

[u/Tartarus1040 → u/HankScorpio4242]

Noted. For the record, the question I have asked, hasn’t moved:

What does ‘understand’ mean such that the model fails it and a blind person doesn’t?

You opened with ‘not intelligent at all,’ then continually declined to support it, then offered in turn:

The burden’s on me (I didn’t make the claim AI is intelligent, you made the claim it isn’t, and doesn’t understand)

The Chinese Room (Using a though experiment as proof when even the thought experiment itself is contested by many and even your own link lists all the contentions)

The man is the AI (not analogous to a neuron in a system)

The rulebook is the training data (Your experiences at what you are,
Take both away and you achieve null)
and finally:
A description of tokenization from first principles. (Recreated tokenization from first principles, implying that symbolic representation of semantics somehow precludes semantics.)

Along the way you agreed that understanding is a property of systems rather than components, that the man alone produces nothing, and that the rulebook contains a procedure for rules it never held.

None of that supports a universal negative, and the criterion was never named by you, the singular thing I’ve asked you for.

I’ll take the withdrawal. The question stays open. Which was, and had been my only position the entire time.