Viewing profile — gumgumpost

>we always used the turing test as a yardstick for consciousness Yet that cannot compel reality. How we define something is the measure of chance we get it right. >Now thats its be…

>You have a mistaken understanding of what atheism is. It is not a belief in anything, but an absence of belief in a deity. I consider that to also be a wrongly held position, beca…

Current LLM tech has no sense of time, because it's working on different principles than a brain does. Maybe (highly debatable) you could get something from spiking neural networks…

>we could define consciousness We cannot. And our definitions mean nothing to reality. We can all define something as something else, means nothing to how it behaves. But ultimatel…

>I think it's important that when you talk about consciousness, you pin down exactly what that means. We don't need that. It's way simpler. When we mass manufacture products we imp…

Don't know much about the field, but isn't he implying it could make math more compatible with the physical world? Math as a field seems like a deep rabbit hole that sometimes desc…

Since you're at it, if you're also curious, what would be the energy cost of trying all of them, considering the average power used by a random computer today? Are we looking at so…

Those are just the odds, but you randomly finding it in the next 10 minutes is a valid move in this universe. The silly low odds don't guarantee you won't find it.

Isn't that somewhat similar to prions? I mean I know they're different things but one triggering the other to change shape? Don't know if prions also fall in some sort of lower ene…

[dead]

[dead]