Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

If parrots can talk, why can’t monkeys?

english.elpais.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 221 posts

Re: If parrots can talk, why can’t monkeys?

#51

Post by nico »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #47
nico wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

> human = monkey + LLM This is an old tradition in popular science, replacing the humans are animals with souls analogy with the current fad. (Analogies to clockworks, printed circuits, et cetera .) They’re wrong because they’re oversimplifying for pithiness. Not explanatory value.

Which words have explanatory value?

Do models that make abstractions and analogies have explanatory value?

Do memes have explanatory value?

Do quotes have explanatory value?

Re: If parrots can talk, why can’t monkeys?

#52

Post by JumpCrisscross »

nico wrote: post #51
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> human = monkey + LLM This is an old tradition in popular science, replacing the humans are animals with souls analogy with the current fad. (Analogies to clockworks, printed circuits, et cetera .) They’re wrong because they’re oversimplifying for pithiness. Not explanatory value.

Which words have explanatory value? Do models that make abstractions and analogies have explanatory value? Do memes have explanatory value? Do quotes have explanatory value?

> Do models that make abstractions and analogies have explanatory value?

Yes, this is science. If it makes useful predictions, it has explanatory value. If it doesn’t, it’s cocktail party and TED talk fodder.

Re: If parrots can talk, why can’t monkeys?

#53

Post by taneq »

tokyolights2 wrote: post #30
pcrh wrote: post #20

It's interesting to compare this "sound-talk" that parrots can easily accomplish with the obviously greater intelligence of apes, who can't reproduce human sounds, with the debate over whether chatGPT is intelligent or not. Note that Koko was obviously a greater communicator than any parrot ever was. Is mimicking human behaviour a necessary, or even sufficient, criteria for demonstrating cognition and intelligence?

The short story "The Great Silence" by Ted Chaing feels very relevant here. > The humans use Arecibo to look for extraterrestrial intelligence. Their desire to make a connection is so strong that they’ve created an ear capable of hearing across the universe. But I and my fellow parrots are right here. Why aren’t they interested in listening to our voices? We’re a nonhuman species capable of communicating with them. A…

I think the dark forest theory rings very true here. The risk/reward equation for communication is skewed so far towards the risk end that, as the joke goes, maybe the surest sign that there’s intelligent life is that none of it has contacted us.

Or Peter Watts’ much more succinct take: if they do exist, they’ll be mean.

Re: If parrots can talk, why can’t monkeys?

#54

Post by xoac »

nico wrote: post #50
rcme wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s not the conclusion at all. The article says monkeys can understand and produce words (via signs). They can’t talk because they don’t have control of their larynx. They’re mute essentially.

Was just riffing on the comment that was replying to. So is the control issue in the larynx or in the brain? And if it was the brain, could some sort of AI system do brain larynx communication for the monkeys? (Via electrodes maybe?)

Yes, we just put some AI via electrodes into the monkeys. If we can also add some blockchain, I think we'll have a winner. Let's circle back Monday on this idea, I'd like to pick your brain some more.

Re: If parrots can talk, why can’t monkeys?

#55

Post by nico »

traject_ wrote: post #24
nico wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

There's no reason to believe that LLMs are necessarily similar to humans. Just think of flight; both birds and planes can fly despite being very different. It's understandable that because humans are our main reference for intelligence that we see LLMs speaking language as a proof of similarity but there's no concrete reason to assume that.

You are right, there’s no concrete reason why an Internet comment should be taken to heart, yet somehow we still do react emotionally to online content all day long.

I get excited, happy, sad, jealous, proud and a bunch of other stuff just seeing stuff on a screen.

Anyway, what is life’s concrete reason to be? Does everything need one to be considered valid?

Re: If parrots can talk, why can’t monkeys?

#56

Post by nico »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #52
nico wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which words have explanatory value? Do models that make abstractions and analogies have explanatory value? Do memes have explanatory value? Do quotes have explanatory value?

> Do models that make abstractions and analogies have explanatory value? Yes, this is science. If it makes useful predictions, it has explanatory value. If it doesn’t, it’s cocktail party and TED talk fodder.

Which one of those has more influence in the world?

Re: If parrots can talk, why can’t monkeys?

#57

Post by haliskerbas »

xoac wrote: post #54
nico wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Was just riffing on the comment that was replying to. So is the control issue in the larynx or in the brain? And if it was the brain, could some sort of AI system do brain larynx communication for the monkeys? (Via electrodes maybe?)

Yes, we just put some AI via electrodes into the monkeys. If we can also add some blockchain, I think we'll have a winner. Let's circle back Monday on this idea, I'd like to pick your brain some more.

You're mocking the parent but isn't this what most BCIs do? Electrodes + signal processing to estimate some output.

Re: If parrots can talk, why can’t monkeys?

#59

Post by JumpCrisscross »

nico wrote: post #56
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Do models that make abstractions and analogies have explanatory value? Yes, this is science. If it makes useful predictions, it has explanatory value. If it doesn’t, it’s cocktail party and TED talk fodder.

Which one of those has more influence in the world?

> Which one of those has more influence in the world?

You’re asking whether science or popular pseudoscience has more influence?

Post reply on HN