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

61–70 of 264 posts

Re: Using secondary school maths to demystify AI

#61

Post by mcswell »

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.

I don't see the relevance of that argument (which other responders to your post have pointed out as Searle's Chinese Room argument). The pen and paper are of course not doing any thinking, but then the pen isn't doing any writing on its own, either. It's the system of pen + paper + human that's doing the thinking.

Re: Using secondary school maths to demystify AI

#62

Post by terminalshort »

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.

I have yet to hear any plausible definition of "thought" that convincingly places LLMs and brains on opposite sides of it without being obviously contrived for that purpose.

Re: Using secondary school maths to demystify AI

#63

Post by hnfong »

gnull wrote: post #35
phantasmish wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The simulation isn't an operating brain. It's a description of one. What it "means" is imposed by us, what it actually is, is a shitload of graphite marks on paper or relays flipping around or rocks on sand or (pick your medium). An arbitrarily-perfect simulation of a burning candle will never, ever melt wax. An LLM is always a description. An LLM operating on a computer is identical to a description of it operating…

What makes the simulation we live in special compared to the simulation of a burning candle that you or I might be running? That simulated candle is perfectly melting wax in its own simulation. Duh, it won't melt any in ours, because our arbitrary notions of "real" wax are disconnected between the two simulatons.

They do have a valid subtle point though.

If we don't think the candle in a simulated universe is a "real candle", why do we consider the intelligence in a simulated universe possibly "real intelligence"?

Being a functionalist ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Functionalism_(philosophy_of_m... ) myself, I don't know the answer on the top of my head.

Re: Using secondary school maths to demystify AI

#64

Post by WhyOhWhyQ »

dang wrote: post #190

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

A lot of the drama here is due to the ambiguity of what the word 'think' is supposed to mean. One camp associates 'thinking' to consciousness, another does not. I personally believe it is possible to create an animal-like or human-like intelligence, without consciousness existing in the system. I personally would still describe whatever processing that system is doing as 'thinking'. Others believe in "substrate independence"; they think any such system must be consciousness.

(Sneaking a bit of belief in here, to me "substrate independence" is a more extreme position than the idea that a system could be made which is intelligent but not conscious, hence I find it implausible.)

Re: Using secondary school maths to demystify AI

#65

Post by mcswell »

ares623 wrote: post #24
hamdingers wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If it comes to the correct answer I don't particularly care how it got there.

How do you know if it came to the right answer?

It's not always the case, but often verifying an answer is far easier than coming up with the answer in the first place. That's precisely the principle behind the RSA algorithm for cryptography.

Re: Using secondary school maths to demystify AI

#67

Post by terminalshort »

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.

Statements like "it is bound by the laws of physics" are not "verifiable" by your definition, and yet we safely assume it is true of everything. Everything except the human brain, that is, for which wild speculation that it may be supernatural is seemingly considered rational discussion so long as it satisfies people's needs to believe that they are somehow special in the universe.

Re: Using secondary school maths to demystify AI

#69

Post by jvanderbot »

terminalshort wrote: post #67
jvanderbot wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thinking is undefined so all statements about it are unverifiable.

Statements like "it is bound by the laws of physics" are not "verifiable" by your definition, and yet we safely assume it is true of everything. Everything except the human brain, that is, for which wild speculation that it may be supernatural is seemingly considered rational discussion so long as it satisfies people's needs to believe that they are somehow special in the universe.

True. You need to define "it" before you can verify physics bounds it.

Unicorns are not bound by the laws of physics - because they do not exist.

Re: Using secondary school maths to demystify AI

#70

Post by random9749832 »

nutjob2 wrote: post #26
random9749832 wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

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

At the end of the day most people would agree that if something is able to solve a problem without a lookup table / memorisation that it used reasoning to reach the answer. You are really just splitting hairs here.
Post reply on HN