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

Human

quarter--mile.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 282 posts

Re: Human

#201

Post by noboostforyou »

notepad0x90 wrote: post #91
genewitch wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Why are emotions so special? they're just algorithms like any other. That's a pretty bold claim. There's uncountable inputs. It's like trying to accurately predict the weather - chaos theory or something. Emotions are "essentially" gas exchange, but the areas and rate or whatever are not standardized across humans.

Emotions are not inputs, they are outputs first. we process information using internal algorithms that we developed as a result of our life experience and genetic coding and the result is an emotional verdict over some input. That emotional verdict is presented to our decision making algorithms as input, we can ignore it or act on it. I have neither experienced or observed anything about human emotions that indicates…

> Not only are emotions deterministic

So is your claim that 100% of all human emotions are deterministic? That's quite a bold claim don't you think?

Re: Human

#202

Post by Workaccount2 »

notepad0x90 wrote: post #26

Why are emotions so special? they're just algorithms like any other. Emotions aren't what make humans different than machines. feeling something is similar to an LLM model reacting to a prompt a certain way. Just because chatgpt is trained to not "feel" anything (to avoid controversial output) doesn't mean LLMs can't feel things like we do. self-awareness, self-training, adaptability, original thinking, critical thin…

>Why are emotions so special?

Because TV and movies have constantly drilled into most peoples minds since an early age that human emotion is a magical transcendent force that only humans can understand.

Basically people let English lit majors turned screen writers dictate their worldview.

Re: Human

#203

Post by Workaccount2 »

NhanH wrote: post #43
irjustin wrote: post #30

Related but an aside - Lately I've really been wondering if Skynet actually is the next evolution. That humans, like all animals before us, are a stepping stone and there is actually no avoiding machine overlords. It happens to literally every existence of life across the universe because the final emergent property of energy gradients 100% leads to pure logic machines. At least Fermi's paradox helps me sleep better…

> It happens to literally every existence of life across the universe because the final emergent property of energy gradients 100% leads to pure logic machines. This sentence has way too many assumptions doing the heavy lifting. “Pure logic machines” is not a thing because literally, there are things that are uncomputable (both in the sense of Turing machine’s uncomputability, and in the sense that some functions are…

A better way to approach it is that mother nature favors things that don't die, and machines offer the killer combination of durability and repairability. Once you can add intelligence to machines, they should be her choice lifeform.

Re: Human

#204

Post by bsza »

imsofuture wrote: post #199

The hubris that circulates around LLMs is astounding.

The hubris of those who think they will surpass or replace human intelligence, or the hubris of those who think they will not?

Re: Human

#205

Post by mr_toad »

bradly wrote: post #185
mr_toad wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> what if everything from mind, physics, value, selfhood, is simply a recursive pattern Most matter in the universe is various forms of plasma that have no pattern. You generally find patterns in condensed matter. And yes patterns, including life, repeat themselves. That’s just a tautology.

> Most matter in the universe is various forms of plasma that have no pattern. You generally find patterns in condensed matter. I don't know anything about plasma or science, so do take this as an accusation, but does science have a way to identify something of having no pattern vs having no pattern found?

The mathematical concept is symmetry (which differs a bit from the layman’s definition).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symmetry_(physics)

Much of the universe, and the laws of physics are symmetrical. But condensed matter exhibits forms of asymmetry, and emergent behaviour. Organisation reduces the possible microstates of a system, and thus breaks symmetry.

Re: Human

#206

Post by z3phyr »

irjustin wrote: post #30

Related but an aside - Lately I've really been wondering if Skynet actually is the next evolution. That humans, like all animals before us, are a stepping stone and there is actually no avoiding machine overlords. It happens to literally every existence of life across the universe because the final emergent property of energy gradients 100% leads to pure logic machines. At least Fermi's paradox helps me sleep better…

Do pure logic machine use some kind of higher order prolog, which currently does not exist?

Re: Human

#207

Post by blackhaj7 »

flipbrad wrote: post #188
blackhaj7 wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“Instead of a “final authority” or a simple march from animal to machine, what if everything from mind, physics, value, selfhood, is simply a recursive pattern expressed in ever more novel forms?” This part nicely synthesises my biggest takeaway from experiencing AI: how close to human intelligence we have got with recursive pattern matching

Douglas Hofstadter would like a word. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_Hofstadter

"an emergent consequence of seething lower-level activity in the brain"

Interesting!

Re: Human

#208

Post by amoshebb »

alnwlsn wrote: post #182
dan-robertson wrote: post #170

Perhaps I am unimaginative about whatever AGI might be, but it so often feels to me like predictions are more based on sci-fi than observation. The theorized AI is some anthropomorphization of a 1960s mainframe: you tell it what to do and it executes that exactly with precise logic and no understanding of nuance or ambiguity. Maybe it is evil. The SOTA in AI at the moment is very good at nuance and ambiguity but some…

I've listened to some old sci-fi radio shows and it's interesting how often "the computer never makes a mistake" comes up. Which is usually followed by the computer making a mistake.

AI is usually just a 20th/21st century “icarus wax wings” or sometimes “monkeys paw”. Re-masters of a “watch out for unintended consequences” fable that almost certainly predates written text.

Re: Human

#209

Post by notepad0x90 »

jplusequalt wrote: post #187
notepad0x90 wrote: post #26

Why are emotions so special? they're just algorithms like any other. Emotions aren't what make humans different than machines. feeling something is similar to an LLM model reacting to a prompt a certain way. Just because chatgpt is trained to not "feel" anything (to avoid controversial output) doesn't mean LLMs can't feel things like we do. self-awareness, self-training, adaptability, original thinking, critical thin…

>Why are emotions so special? they're just algorithms like any other Nobody understands what emotions are. Nor can they predict which emotion someone will feel in a given situation, or how they'll act under the influence of that emotion. Emotions aren't the mechanism by which humans solve problems, and rather they are often an obstacle to overcome. Emotions also aren't "finite" or "rigorous" as those terms aren't app…

I didn't claim to understand what emotions are but that by observation we know they are deterministic and a result of belief and memory. they're not magic. Just like how I can't tell you what the specific configuration of chatgpt's model is but I do know it is a model that is made up of memory (public internet data scanning) that is trained by prompt engineers (belief parameters). Emotions may be dynamic, unreasonable and similar terms, but they are finite and rigorous, it is just that we struggle to fully grasp them due to the immense and complex nature of the human mind.

> This is the kind of confidently incorrect statements people who work on software say that irks me. Not everything in life has a nice and simple parallel to computer science. Just because a person can abstract about one subject well, doesn't mean their tools of abstraction can be applied to all other subjects.

If I was a sailor, I'm sure I would be using sailor metaphors and analogies. the message of my comment and the facts of the matter don't change either way, whether it irks you or not.

Re: Human

#210

Post by mr_toad »

dayvid wrote: post #181
pixl97 wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Information is more fundamental than energy. Maxwells demon and all.

I don't think you can have information without energy and information will come with energy

Landauer's principle?
Post reply on HN