this post was submitted on 29 Apr 2026
658 points (95.7% liked)
Microblog Memes
11427 readers
1822 users here now
A place to share screenshots of Microblog posts, whether from Mastodon, tumblr, ~~Twitter~~ X, KBin, Threads or elsewhere.
Created as an evolution of White People Twitter and other tweet-capture subreddits.
RULES:
- Your post must be a screen capture of a microblog-type post that includes the UI of the site it came from, preferably also including the avatar and username of the original poster. Including relevant comments made to the original post is encouraged.
- Your post, included comments, or your title/comment should include some kind of commentary or remark on the subject of the screen capture. Your title must include at least one word relevant to your post.
- You are encouraged to provide a link back to the source of your screen capture in the body of your post.
- Current politics and news are allowed, but discouraged. There MUST be some kind of human commentary/reaction included (either by the original poster or you). Just news articles or headlines will be deleted.
- Doctored posts/images and AI are allowed, but discouraged. You MUST indicate this in your post (even if you didn't originally know). If an image is found to be fabricated or edited in any way and it is not properly labeled, it will be deleted.
- Absolutely no NSFL content.
- Be nice. Don't take anything personally. Take political debates to the appropriate communities. Take personal disagreements & arguments to private messages.
- No advertising, brand promotion, or guerrilla marketing.
RELATED COMMUNITIES:
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I can't speak for the original author, but I suspect they probably think that because it is the truth.
It's not that I think AI is better than you do. It's that people who say things like you do are setting different standards for AI and human intelligence, but you don't explain why you think it's okay or reasonable to do so.
I mean, the provable lack of semantic comprehension is literally the mechanism for a subset of academically rigorous papers on LLM attacks.
There are plenty of things you can debate in the body of discourse around LLMs, this just flatly isn't one of them.
Those academically rigorous papers prove a complete lack of semantic comprehension? Exactly zero semantic comprehension? Because that is the claim here. "NO UNDERSTANDING OF FACTS OR SEMANTICS."
It's strange because all of the papers I see deal with semantic error rates, which is a completely different claim. Now, then, how would you say that you are personally doing with regard to semantics?
Me? Personally? Tough to say, you're entering into the realm of philosophy at that point... but it's a more fruitful avenue of argument... even though I know you were just trying to be a dick.
I genuinely think it would be an easier task to argue human minds don't even qualify and then to argue LLM equivalency than it would be to argue an LM has semantic comprehension.
Okay, you just said:
Now, don't just breeze through this, actually read what I said in my previous comments:
and
If you think what you said you thought, then why would you argue against me in the first place?
It seems to me like in your first comment, you were steel-manning the original argument by completely ignoring the obviously completely untrue part about "facts", and pretending that it didn't say there was "no", as in "zero" semantic understanding.
Meanwhile, you're straw-manning my comment, ignoring the fact that all I said was saying we need to compare AI and human intelligence by the same standards. So here I have an apparently human intelligence that is arguing against a meaning that I was not conveying, meanwhile supporting a different meaning that the OP wasn't conveying.
You can't steel man one person's argument just because you support it, and then straw man the opposition's argument just because you don't support it.
What you conveyed in that comment was that your understanding of the meanings in the argument up to that point was completely fucked. It's the perfect example, so of course, I'm going to reference it, even if it makes you think I was just being a dick.
I'm sorry for glossing over it, you're right. You said a few times that you feel like humans don't measure "intelligence" fairly towards machines.
You're right. We probably don't do this fairly towards animals. We probably don't even do this fairly to other humans.
It's a fair mirror to hold up.
Acknowledging that we're susceptible to bias isn't evidence that a conclusion is wrong, though. Some blondes actually ARE dumb.