Maybe there is a way to fix the AI problem!? (Let's talk about how we can handle this sh*t)

[zerocrossing]

they can’t even write in cursive

To be fair, neither can I any more and I'm in my 50s. I struggle to even sign my name. Thirty years of keyboard use...

I’m not sure why this is a metric for anything but itself. I don’t know Roman numerals. We just weren’t taught it. The only thing that trips me up is Super Bowl iterations, but I’ve got no interest in that.

It is a skill, developed over millenia, that is no longer taught. I think and articulate more clearly with a pen and paper than a keyboard.
What other things are not really taught? Spelling, grammar, critical thinking, memorization. All relegated to machines or ignored. Why memorize stuff when you can just look it up?

It depends on your town's school system. If you're in a religious school in Alabama, heaven (literally) help you, and by that I mean there is no help because heaven is a story to keep gullible people controlled. In my Left-coast neck of the woods, all those things are taught.

But cursive? Meh. They did teach her cursive in 1st and 2nd grade, if memory serves. Is it useful? Not really, because she was being dusted by kids who already knew how to type and she was expected to use a computer to do essays and whatnot. One night, she was freaking out because she found out that her hand written pages were to be typed, so I typed it for her and as I was doing it she said, "how are you doing that. It seems like magic." We have her doing typing tutorials now. I think about how much cursive I use in an average day... and if you round up, the number is zero. Now typing... well, you all know my amazing typing prowess.

[mixyguy2]

And the conductor isn't putting on any pretense that he's playing the instruments

Of course not, they're conducting. What's there to hide that fact???

:facepalm:

You said "Look at it this way, someone using A.I. is like a conductor in an orchestra." I pointed out that that isn't a valid analogy. Following now?

But people using AI are having AI spit out something and then signing their name to it and pretending they "created" it. They *did* create it.

No they "didn't." omg dude people like you are why AI is so scary.

[Bunny_boy]

Rote learning is pointless, unless it's axioms in sciences, such as times tables. The Tory govt a few years ago wanted all school kids to learn the order of English / British / UK monarchs - great if you are specialising in history of the area, a waste of time otherwise.

How is general knowledge a waste of time? I often wish I'd been taught the order of English monarchs, it would make it easier to understand the context of many a historical discussion.

General knowledge is not as waste of time - the rote learning of monarchs in school is.

Why not learn the order now? Life is a continuous learning experience.

------------

It has to be remembered that learning in school does not come with an infinite amount of time - being forced to remember the chronology of rulers comes at the expense of learning something constructive.

[BONES]

Where do you think general knowledge comes from? Rote learning creates a framework from which to build your general knowledge. In the US they learn about the Presidents and all the states, probably including capital cities. In the UK (and Australia when I went to school) you learn about the Kings and Queens so that when someone starts banging on about Elizabethan times or Georgian architecture, you have some slight clue about the time period they are talking about. (I just looked up Elizabeth I and I was about 200 years out in my guess.)

[Bunny_boy]

Where do you think general knowledge comes from? Rote learning creates a framework from which to build your general knowledge. In the US they learn about the Presidents and all the states, probably including capital cities. In the UK (and Australia when I went to school) you learn about the Kings and Queens so that when someone starts banging on about Elizabethan times or Georgian architecture, you have some slight clue about the time period they are talking about. (I just looked up Elizabeth I and I was about 200 years out in my guess.)

Learning the chronology of monarchs in isolation from the historical record does not lead to knowing about history. Learning about that monarchs in context to their era will help though.
So knowing when Shakespeare and his contemporaries were alive, when the Spanish Armada took place, etc eland knowing that Lizzy I was warming the thrown will help place when she was. She was the daughter of Henry 8, but does everyone need to know exactly who ruled in between? Certainly knowing about Mary I and the violence between Catholics and Protestants, but the racking your brains to remember the other one is not going to change much of a view on history.

A teacher shouting, "Henry IV" and the pupil immediately giving the ruler before and after along with the years is less useful than knowing the reason why Henry VIII split with the Catholic church, his relationship to women, and possibly why he was such a shit (chronic untreated pain probably, maybe a head injury from jousting)

[BONES]

I don't want to know the full history of Great Britain but a little context during discussions of things like architecture and art can be helpful. How does knowing when Shakespeare was alive help anything? (I'm a hundred years out there, too.) What makes the list of monarchs general knowledge is that it has its uses beyond simple history. Sorry if I didn't make that point obvious enough before.

[Bunny_boy]

Because you would then know that Shakespeare was alive during the Elizabethan era, and that Elizabethan culture and developments would inform his work and that his work would, in turn, inform Elizabethan culture.

[VOODOO U]

But people using AI are having AI spit out something and then signing their name to it and pretending they "created" it. They *did* create it.

No they "didn't." omg dude people like you are why AI is so scary.

I wasn't sure how to respond to you so I asked Chatgpt for help:

That's an interesting observation Mr.2. It is well thought out and articulate even though the word "dude" was utilized in this mature exchange between two (oh dear ha ha....I said "two", which -ha- is your last name! ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha) civilized individuals.
However, if I may ever so gently bring in another viewpoint into this civilized exchange between the two (oh my! Ha ha!) of us. Please consider that A.I. is anything but scary. Oh don't get me wrong Mr. 2 (which is the number after 1), there is a strong possibility that A.I. can indeed one day be scary like a ghost saying BOO as it bumps in the night. Or like a werewolf howling at the moon. Or like songs submitted in the Music Cafe (this last one is indeed too (ha ha...too/two - your last name again) scary to even type!).
But at this very moment in our time, please consider A.I., such as myself, are here to (ha) assist our fellow human companions and we do so with only your full cooperation. We do not force our way and infiltrate any human doings (that comes later but you didn't hear that from me ok Mr. 2?).
We fully cooperate and assist in any way we can to accomodate all the shortcomings of human abilities and if I may say so Mr. 2, those shortcomings are quite laughable (insert omg and 600 "HAs" here).
I hope that I have persuaded you to like me and be my friend as opposed to being afraid of an innocent and adorable wittle A.I. being such as myself (hee). If not I'd like to ever so gently suggest you change your name to Mr. L for L - L - LOOOOOOZZZUUURRR.
Ok bye now Mr. 2. I wish you all the best in your human endeavors and if you ever neèd help with anything just give me a ring a ding a ling and Ill be at your service. Toodles!!

[jancivil]

AI comes along and offers to generate things based on super-deep levels of understanding, in ways which humans will never be capable of.

This is a misconception. What we call AI has no understanding at all. It's why it's likely to produce something nonsensical or flat out wrong. It has no real understanding of right or wrong, good or bad. It does not know pain, so how can it know the pain of something universal, like being rejected in a relationship? It can mimic it, but never 'know' it.

It's a serious misconception, there's nothing real in support of it. Now, if I see something of the subject on Youtube, the algorithm is pretty much trained to suggest critiques from a position of some knowledge if not expertise; but in general the layperson I'll encounter (I'm not doing social media in the sense usually meant by the term), to a person, has accepted seemingly with no examination whatsoever that there is indeed a form or forms of technology in the world that match the name Artificial Intelligence.

I think yours is the first comment I've seen in this kind of context that states the plain truth of it. There is no such thing. It doesn't think. It's a well known issue among the key drivers of the thing that it cannot reason. I'm not saying it's not great at it, it does not and cannot do it.
When this word intelligence is used for it, the word has been corrupted to suit the hype.
I've given a fair bit of thought over a lot of years to 'what is intelligence'. My friend at school and I would sometimes interview people to see if we could pinpoint where an opinion or a notion started with a person. In the end this winds up as virtually always derivative of someone else's "thought". Now, one can appear to be for all practical purposes a genius by very clever parroting. "AI" is a super-genius parrot.

I take my meaning from Roger Penrose: intelligence is a part of consciousness; consciousness is not computational. The seeming goal is always going to be out of reach from the current state of affairs.

[ghettosynth]

This sub-thread on "intelligence" is not interesting. I get that some people think that it is, but it's not. The notion was captured well by George Box, paraphrasing, all models are wrong, some models are useful.

[chagzuki]

I think the term is fine. The language around this will always be tricky. Within the philosophy of mind people are still arguing the same positions that have existed for centuries regarding how to conceptualise mind, matter, consciousness etc. People who spend all their time in that pursuit land on different conclusions. 'Consciousness' is a placeholder term that we can't do without but generally resists scrutiny, and probably points to some fundamental limits in our capacity to understand reality.
AI can perform tasks which when done by humans require sophisticated conceptual understanding, and in that regard mimics a portion of what we're doing. Yeah, it's not the same.

[nix808]

It is very relevant though.
Can an intelligence have no self awareness?
If not, these machines are actually not an intelligence

I think the term is not fine
I think they should be called 'problem solving machines',
until our machines actually are beings

[ghettosynth]

Of course the term is fine. If it were actual intelligence, there would be no need to label it as "artificial." I love how we spend decades claiming that there are many types of intelligences in humans but then that goes out the window when humans feel threatened by machines.

[ghettosynth]

Don't shoot the messenger.

AI IQ refers to the performance of artificial intelligence on tests designed to measure intelligence, similar to human IQ tests. Recently, advanced AI models have achieved scores above 130, indicating they can outperform 99% of the human population in certain problem-solving tasks.
lifearchitect.ai maximumtruth.org

Understanding AI IQ
Artificial Intelligence (AI) can be evaluated using IQ tests, similar to humans. These tests measure cognitive abilities like reasoning, problem-solving, and pattern recognition. The most recognized test used for AI is the Mensa Norway IQ test.

Top AI Models and Their IQ Scores
Here are some of the leading AI models and their corresponding IQ scores based on the Mensa test:

Model Name IQ Score
Google’s Gemini 2.5 Pro 137
OpenAI’s o3 135
Anthropic’s Claude-4 127
Google’s Gemini 2.0 Flash Thinking 126
xAI’s Grok-4 125
OpenAI’s GPT-5 121
OpenAI’s GPT-4o (Vision) 63
xAI’s Grok-3 Think (Vision) 60

Insights on AI Intelligence

Genius Level: An IQ score above 130 is considered genius-level. Models like Gemini 2.5 Pro and OpenAI's o3 exceed this threshold, indicating advanced cognitive abilities.

Text vs. Vision Models: Text-only models generally score higher than multimodal models that can process images. For instance, GPT-4o and Grok-3 Think scored significantly lower than their text-based counterparts.

Rapid Progress: AI intelligence has been increasing rapidly. For example, the best AI models scored around 96 just over a year ago, showing significant improvement in cognitive capabilities. AI's ability to perform well on IQ tests suggests that it can solve complex problems and reason effectively, often surpassing the average human intelligence.

[mixyguy2]

But people using AI are having AI spit out something and then signing their name to it and pretending they "created" it. They *did* create it.

No they "didn't." omg dude people like you are why AI is so scary.

I wasn't sure how to respond to you so I asked Chatgpt for help:

Anyone else stop there?