The undefeated argument for explaining it to laypeople is to show just how "linear" the process for an LLM is compared to human thought. When you prompt the LLM, all it ever does is it takes your input, turns it into a sequence of mathematical objects, then it puts them through a really long chain of matrix multiplications that lands on an output that gets converted back into language. At no point does it have branches where it takes some time to introspect, consider, recall, or reflect on anything the way a human does when we receive a question. It's not thinking.

[–] volcel_olive_oil@hexbear.net 17 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

I've taken to calling them "synths" because what is it doing that's fundamentally different from a 1980's CASIO? A simple input is returning a complex output? waow

[–] tripartitegraph@hexbear.net 11 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Honestly I think if the term “cybernetics” had won over “artificial intelligence” there’d be less of this obfuscation. But “AI” is more marketable, and of course that’s all that matters.

[–] Fossifoo@hexbear.net 3 points 2 weeks ago

Gippity, the technical term is gippity.