Why Is the Human Brain So Efficient? (2018) • Hacker News Board

Re: Why Is the Human Brain So Efficient? (2018)

#171

Post by kristopolous » Wed, Jun 10, 2020, 10:49 AM UTC

EmilioMartinez wrote: post #78

kristopolous wrote: post #69

They aren't the same thing. They are different classes of objects, different tasks. This comparison is kind of silly. I'd hate my computer to have the memory accuracy or the computational accuracy of my brain. I'd hate to have the creativity and inspiration of a computer. Delete being such a nontrivial operation is probably a good thing for humans. Copy being imperfect probably has something to do with the phenomenon…

I don't see how any of that makes the comparison "silly". It's not like we have so many instances of computer paradigms to go around comparing.

It's like measuring a gun in units of swords. You can achieve similar ends but they aren't the same. Or the companionship of a spouse in units of pets. The fundamental unit is at the affect level, not the application. That's a very important distinction.

Any model comparing the application then is fundamentally misinformation.

It's even worse because it suggests an equivocation is possible. As if you can get X units of dogs as a substitute for Y units of spouse. You just have to find the magic ratio!

Wrong framings can stick people in insolvable problems well, sometimes for generations. It's really bad.

They're fundamentally different and pretending otherwise is just going in the one of the most useless directions possible

Re: Why Is the Human Brain So Efficient? (2018)

#172

Post by papito » Thu, Jun 11, 2020, 1:13 AM UTC

jayjader wrote: post #50

gambiting wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>>For example, you can feed a neural net all the recipes of burgers to create a perfect burger. Great. But how does the same net invent the burger? Wait....but it just....did? It took the information about all possible burger recipes and invented a new one out of these. Like, a human could only invent a new burger if they knew anything about burgers in the first place, at the very least that it's a bun with some fill…

Not OP, but I think they're not talking about inventing a _new_ burger, but inventing _the_ burger, as in the first one ever. As in, the neural net in this example is able to improvise a new burger recipe solely because it was given existing recipes to burgers as input; it did not come up with the notion of a burger and then produce a recipe that outputs something fulfilling that notion when followed. Personally, I w…

The burger was invented because a hungry traveler walked into a restaurant in Connecticut that was closing, and the owner had nothing but some beef and bread left. So he improvised - cooked the beef patty and squeezed it between two bread slices.

To this day they serve their burgers between two bread slices - not buns.

If you want to look it up, it's called LOUIS’ LUNCH.

AI my ass :D

Re: Why Is the Human Brain So Efficient? (2018)

#173

Post by Stupulous » Mon, Jun 15, 2020, 1:43 AM UTC

the_af wrote: post #161

Stupulous wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But steam engines and hydraulics and gear mechanisms are all Turing complete. There is nothing wrong with those models. You could build a brain out of any of them, unless the brain computes something that is not computable. If the brain does something that is not computable, that's a direct challenge to some of our most established science. It is possible, but I think very unlikely.

> You could build a brain out of any of them, unless the brain computes something that is not computable. Could you? That's sort of begging the question. We do not know if something "Turing complete" can be used to build a brain like the human brain. That's precisely the point. > If the brain does something that is not computable, that's a direct challenge to some of our most established science. A challenge for comp…

The argument I'm responding to is one that says people are wrong about brains being computers because people always believe they can make brains out of technology of the day. My point is that all of these things are the same theory, and it is one that has not been disproven.

If a brain cannot be produced in a turing machine, it must perform some non-computable activity. That would mean physics cannot be accurately simulated in a computer, which I believe would be earth-shaking in that world. That brains can be reproduced in a simulation is a default assumption, that something composed of molecules can produce outcomes that cannot be computed is an extraordinary claim, for which, I believe, there is no evidence.