231–240 of 497 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Funny that we never quite understood how intelligence worked and yet it appears that we're pretty damn close to recreating it - still without knowing how it works. I wonder how often this happens in the universe...
Evolution created intelligence without even being intelligent itself
I wish there was insightful explanations on why AI cannot think, and if there are researchers trying to explore this topic, and if yes what they do.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Evolution created intelligence without even being intelligent itself
How do you know that’s true?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'll repost a comment via Reddit that I think makes this case [0]: Ants have developed architecture, with plumbing, ventilation, nurseries for rearing the young, and paved thoroughfares. Ants practice agriculture, including animal husbandry. Ants have social stratification that differs from but is comparable to that of human cultures, with division of labor into worker, soldier, and other specialties that do not have…
To be honest, this description is leaning heavily on the associations we have with individual words used. Ant "architecture" isn't like our architecture. Ant "plumbing" and "ventilation" have little in common with the kind of plumbing and ventilation we use in buildings. "Nurseries", "rearing the young", that's just stretching the analogy to the point of breaking. "Agriculture", "animal husbandry" - I don't even know…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We know that complex arrangements of neurons are triggered based on input and generating output that appears to have some intelligence to many humans. The more interesting question is why are intelligence/beauty/consciousness emergent properties that exist in our minds.
There is no evidence that intelligence runs on neurons. Yes, there are neurons in brains, but there's also lots of other stuff in there too. And there are creatures that exhibit intelligent properties even though they have hardly any neurons at all. (An individual ant has only something like 250000 neurons, and yet they're the only creatures beside humans that managed to create a civilization.)
1. Neurons connect all our senses and all our muscles.
2. Neurons are the definitive difference between the brain and the rest of the body. There is “other stuff” in the brain, but it’s not so different from the “other stuff” that’s in your rear end.
Don’t underestimate what a neuron can do. A single artificial neuron can fit a logistic regression model. A quarter of a million is on then scale of some our our largest AI, and biological neurons are far more connected than ANN. An ant quite likely has a more powerful brain than GPT-4.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"LLMs are quickly going to be able to start explaining their own thought processes better than any human can explain their own." There is no "their" and there is no "thought process" . There is something that produces text that appears to humans like there is something like thought going on (cf the Eliza Effect), but we must be wary of this anthropomorphising language. There is no self reflection, but if you ask an L…
Pride comes before the fall, and the AI comes before humility.
When someone states definitively what LLMs can or cannot do, that is when you know to immediately disregard them as the waffling of uninformed laymen lacking the necessary knowledge foundations (cognitive/neuroscience/philosophy) to even appreciate the uncertainty and finer points under discussion (all the open questions regarding human cognition etc).
They don't know what they don't know and make unfounded assertions as result.
Many would do to refrain from speaking so surely about matters they know nothing about, but that is the internet for you.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Which is to say, we still have no clue as to what's going on inside GPT-4 or even GPT-3, which I think is the question many want an answer to. Exactly. Especially: > ...the technique is already very computationally intensive, and the focus on individual neurons as a function of input means that they can't "reverse engineer" larger structures composed of multiple neurons nor a neuron that has multiple roles; This pa…
> It is also the reason why they cannot be trusted in the most serious of applications which such decision making requires lots of transparency rather than a model regurgitating nonsense confidently. Doesn't this criticism also apply to people to some extent? We don't know what the purpose of individual brain neurons is.
The machine model is not only a black box, but one incapable of understanding anything about its input, "thought process", or output. It will blindly spit out a response based on its training data and weights, without knowing the difference whether it true or false, meaningful or complete gibberish.
"This work is part of the third pillar of our approach to alignment research: we want to automate the alignment research work itself. A promising aspect of this approach is that it scales with the pace of AI development. As future models become increasingly intelligent and helpful as assistants, we will find better explanations." On first look this is genius but it seems pretty tautological in a way. How do we know i…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What's the argument that understanding neurons is necessary? Perhaps intelligence is like a black box input to our bodies (call it the "soul", even though this isn't testable and therefore not a hypothesis). The mind therefore wouldn't play any more of a role in intelligence than the eye. And I'm not sure people would say the eye is necessary for understanding intelligence. Now, I'm not really in a position to argue…
You can actually hypothesize that a soul exists and that intelligence is non-material, its just that your tests would quickly disprove that hypothesis - crude physical, mechanical modifications to the brain cause changes to intellect and character. If your hypothesis was correct you would not expect to see changes like that at all. Some people think that neurons specifically aren't necessary for understanding intelli…
That’s not necessarily a disproof. It’s also not necessarily reasonable to conflate what we call “the soul” with intelligence.
This is entering the world of philosophy, metaphysics and religion and leaving the world of science.
The modern instinct is to simply call bullshit on anything which cannot be materially verified, which is in many ways a very wise thing to do. But it’s worth leaving a door open for weirdness, because apart from very limited kinds of mathematical truth (maybe), I think everything we’ve ever thought to be true has had deeper layers revealed to us than we could have previously imagined.
Consider the reported experience of people who’ve had strokes and lost their ability to speak, and then later regained that ability through therapy. They report experiencing their own thoughts and wanting to speak, but something goes wrong/they can’t translate that into a physical manifestation of their inner state.
Emotional regulation, personality, memory, processing speed, etc… are those really that different from speech? Are they really the essence of who we are, or are they a bridge to the physical world manifest within our bodies?
We can’t reverse most brain damage, so it’s usually not possible to ask a person what their experience of a damaged state is like in comparison to an improved state. We do have a rough, strange kind of comparison in thinking about our younger selves, though. We were all previously pre memory, drooling, poorly regulated babies (and before that, fetuses with no real perception at all). Is it right to say you didn’t have a soul when you were 3 weeks? A year? Two years? When exactly does “you” begin? I can’t remember who I was when I was when I was 2 months with any clarity at all, and you could certainly put different babies in doctored videos and I wouldn’t be able to tell what was me/make up stories and I’d probably just absorb them. But I’m still me and am that 2 month old, much later in time. Whatever I’m experiencing has a weird kind of continuity. Is that encoded in the brain, even though I can’t remember it? Almost definitely, yeah. Is that all of what that experience of continuity is, and where that sense is coming from? I’ve got no idea. I certainly feel deeper. Remember that we all are not living in the real world, we’re all living in our conscious perception. The notion that we can see all of it within a conscious mirror is a pretty bold claim. We can see a lot of it and damage the bridge/poke ourselves in the eyes with icepicks and whatnot, and that does stuff, but what exactly is it doing? Can we really know?
Intuitively most people would say they were still themselves when they were babies despite the lack of physical development of the brain. Whatever is constructing that continuous experience of self is not memory, because that’s not always there, not intelligence, because that’s not always there, not personality, because that’s not always there… it’s weird.
I think it’s important to remember that. Whenever people think they have human beings fully figured out down to the last mechanical detail and have sufficient understanding to declare who does and doesn’t have a soul and what that means in physical terms, bad things tend to happen. And that goes beyond a statement to be cautious about this kind of stuff purely out of moral hazard; the continual hazard is always as empirical as it is moral. We can never really know what we are. Our perceptual limitations may prove assumptions we make about what we are to be terribly, terribly wrong, despite what seems like certainty.