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

Using secondary school maths to demystify AI

raspberrypi.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 264 posts

Re: Using secondary school maths to demystify AI

#21

Post by palmotea »

School-Cotton wrote: post #8
frozenlettuce wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can replicate all calculations done by LLMs with pen and paper. It would take ages to calculate anything, but it's possible. I don't think that pen and paper will ever "think", regardless of how complex the calculations involved are.

You can simulate a human brain on pen and paper too.

> You can simulate a human brain on pen and paper too.

That's an assumption, though. A plausible assumption, but still an assumption.

We know you can execute an LLM on pen and paper, because people built them and they're understood well enough that we could list the calculations you'd need to do. We don't know enough about the human brain to create a similar list, so I don't think you can reasonably make a stronger statement than "you could probably simulate..." without getting ahead of yourself.

Re: Using secondary school maths to demystify AI

#22

Post by [deleted] »

space_fountain wrote: post #13
andrepd wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's an open problem whether you can or not.

It’s not that open. We can simulate smaller system of neurons just fine, we can simulate chemistry. There might be something beyond that in our brains for some reason, but it sees doubtful right now

[deleted]

Re: Using secondary school maths to demystify AI

#23

Post by snickerbockers »

causal wrote: post #2
dang wrote: post #190

[stub for offtopicness] (in this case, thinkiness)

I love the idea of educating students on the math behind AI to demystify them. But I think it's a little weird to assert "AI is not magic and AI systems do not think. It’s just maths." Equivalent statements could be made about how human brains are not magic, just biology - yet I think we still think.

>Equivalent statements could be made about how human brains are not magic, just biology - yet I think we still think.

They're not equivalent at all because the AI is by no means biological. "It's just maths" could maybe be applied to humans but this is backed entirely by supposition and would ultimately just be an assumption of its own conclusion - that human brains work on the same underlying principles as AI because it is assumed that they're based on the same underlying principles as AI.

Re: Using secondary school maths to demystify AI

#25

Post by d-lisp »

jvanderbot wrote: post #7
causal wrote: post #2

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I love the idea of educating students on the math behind AI to demystify them. But I think it's a little weird to assert "AI is not magic and AI systems do not think. It’s just maths." Equivalent statements could be made about how human brains are not magic, just biology - yet I think we still think.

Thinking is undefined so all statements about it are unverifiable.

Do you think that thinking is undefinable ? If thinking is definable, then all statements about it aren't unverifiable.

Re: Using secondary school maths to demystify AI

#26

Post by nutjob2 »

random9749832 wrote: post #20
jvanderbot wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thinking is undefined so all statements about it are unverifiable.

Is reasoning undefined? That's what usually meant by "thinking".

Formal reasoning is defined, informal reasoning very much isn't.

Re: Using secondary school maths to demystify AI

#27

Post by gus_massa »

frozenlettuce wrote: post #6
dang wrote: post #190

[stub for offtopicness] (in this case, thinkiness)

You can replicate all calculations done by LLMs with pen and paper. It would take ages to calculate anything, but it's possible. I don't think that pen and paper will ever "think", regardless of how complex the calculations involved are.

The official name is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_room

The opinions are exactly the same than about LLM.

Re: Using secondary school maths to demystify AI

#28

Post by thrance »

frozenlettuce wrote: post #6
dang wrote: post #190

[stub for offtopicness] (in this case, thinkiness)

You can replicate all calculations done by LLMs with pen and paper. It would take ages to calculate anything, but it's possible. I don't think that pen and paper will ever "think", regardless of how complex the calculations involved are.

You're arguing against Functionalism [0], of which I'd encourage you to at least read the Wikipedia page. Why would doing the brain's computations on pen and paper rather than on wetware lead to different outcomes? And how?

Connect your pen and paper operator to a brainless human body, and you got something indistinguishable from a regular alive human.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Functionalism_%28philosophy_of...

Re: Using secondary school maths to demystify AI

#29

Post by CamperBob2 »

causal wrote: post #2
dang wrote: post #190

[stub for offtopicness] (in this case, thinkiness)

I love the idea of educating students on the math behind AI to demystify them. But I think it's a little weird to assert "AI is not magic and AI systems do not think. It’s just maths." Equivalent statements could be made about how human brains are not magic, just biology - yet I think we still think.

That's where these threads always end up. Someone asserts, almost violently, that AI does not and/or cannot "think." When asked how to falsify their assertion, perhaps by explaining what exactly is unique about the human brain that cannot and/or will not be possible to emulate, that's the last anyone ever hears from them. At least until the next "AI can't think" story gets posted.

The same arguments that appeared in 2015 inevitably get trotted out, almost verbatim, ten years later. It would be amusing on other sites, but it's just pathetic here.

Re: Using secondary school maths to demystify AI

#30

Post by thrance »

pton_xd wrote: post #19
School-Cotton wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can simulate a human brain on pen and paper too.

So the brain is a mathematical artifact that operates independently from time? It just happens to be implemented using physics? Somehow I doubt it.

The brain follows the laws of physics. The laws of physics can be closely approximated by mathematical models. Thus, the brain can be closely approximated by mathematical models.
Post reply on HN