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

81–90 of 264 posts

Re: Using secondary school maths to demystify AI

#81

Post by ablob »

CamperBob2 wrote: post #29
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.

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…

Usually it is the work of the one claiming something to prove it. So if you believe that AI does "think" you are expected to show me that it really does. Claiming it "thinks - prove otherwise" is just bad form and also opens the discussion up for moving the goalposts just as you did with your brain emulation statement. Or you could just not accept any argument made or circumvent it by stating the one trying to disprove your assertion got the definition wrong. There are countless ways to start a bad faith argument using this methodology, hence: Define property -> prove property.

Conversely, if the one asserting something doesn't want to define it there is no useful conversation to be had. (as in: AI doesn't think - I won't tell you what I mean by think)

PS: Asking someone to falsify their own assertion doesn't seem a good strategy here.

PPS: Even if everything about the human brain can be emulated, that does not constitute progress for your argument, since now you'd have to assert that AI emulates the human brain perfectly before it is complete. There is no direct connection between "This AI does not think" to "The human brain can be fully emulated". Also the difference between "does not" and "can not" is big enough here that mangling them together is inappropriate.

Re: Using secondary school maths to demystify AI

#82

Post by danaris »

School-Cotton wrote: post #74
danaris wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But you are now arguing against a strawman, namely, "it is not possible to construct a computer that thinks". The argument that was actually made was "LLMs do not think".

A: X, because Y B: But Y would also imply Z C: A was never arguing for Z! This is a strawman!

"LLMs cannot think like brains" does not imply "no computer it will ever be possible to construct could think like a brain".

Re: Using secondary school maths to demystify AI

#83

Post by kipchak »

terminalshort wrote: post #56
palmotea wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 s…

I can make a claim much stronger than "you could probably" The counterclaim here is that the brain may not obey physical laws that can be described by mathematics. This is a "5G causes covid" level claim. The overwhelming burden of proof is on you.

Consider for example Orch OR theory. If it or something like it were to be accurate, the brain would not "obey physical laws that can be described by mathematics".

Re: Using secondary school maths to demystify AI

#84

Post by pegasus »

CamperBob2 wrote: post #29
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.

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…

Consider that you might have become polarized yourself. I often encounter good arguments against current AI systems emulating all essential aspects of human thinking. For example, the fact that they can't learn from few examples, that they can't perform simple mathematical operations without access to external help (via tool calling) or that they have to expend so much more energy to do their magic (and yes, to me they are a bit magical), which makes some wonder if what these models do is a form of refined brute-force search, rather than ideating.

Personally, I'm ok with reusing the word "thinking", but there are dogmatic stances on both sides. For example, lots of people decreeing that biology in the end can't but reduce to maths, since "what else could it be". The truth is we don't actually know if it is possible, for any conceivable computational system, to emulate all essential aspects of human thought. There are good arguments for this (in)possibility, like those presented by Roger Penrose in "the Emperor's new Mind" and "Shadows of the Mind".

Re: Using secondary school maths to demystify AI

#85

Post by jvanderbot »

observationist wrote: post #71
snickerbockers wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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 becaus…

Unless you're supposing something mystical or supernatural about how brains work, then yes, it is "just" math, there is nothing else it could be. All of the evidence we have shows it's an electrochemical network of neurons processing information. There's no evidence that suggests anything different, or even the need for anything different. There's no missing piece or deep mystery to it. It's on those who want alterna…

Math is a superset of both processes (can model/implement both), but that doesn't imply that they are equivalent.

Re: Using secondary school maths to demystify AI

#86

Post by School-Cotton »

danaris wrote: post #82
School-Cotton wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A: X, because Y B: But Y would also imply Z C: A was never arguing for Z! This is a strawman!

"LLMs cannot think like brains" does not imply "no computer it will ever be possible to construct could think like a brain".

“LLMs cannot think like brains” is “X”.

Re: Using secondary school maths to demystify AI

#87

Post by BobaFloutist »

ben_w wrote: post #73
jvanderbot wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thinking is undefined so all statements about it are unverifiable.

I would say a different problem: There's many definitions of "thinking". AI and brains can do some, AI and brains definitely provably cannot do others, some others are untestable at present, and nobody really knows enough about what human brains do to be able to tell if or when some existing or future AI can do whatever is needed for the stuff we find special about ourselves. A lot of people use different definitions…

What's a definition of thinking that brains definitely provably can't do?

Re: Using secondary school maths to demystify AI

#88

Post by phantasmish »

hnfong wrote: post #63
gnull wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I think the core trouble is that it's rather difficult to simulate anything at all without requiring a human in the loop before it "works". The simulation isn't anything (well, it's something, but it's definitely not what it's simulating) until we impose that meaning on it. (We could, of course, levy a similar accusation at reality, but folks tend to avoid that because it gets uselessly solipsistic in a hurry)

A simulation of a tree growing (say) is a lot more like the idea of love than it is... a real tree growing. Making the simulation more accurate changes that not a bit.

Re: Using secondary school maths to demystify AI

#89

Post by _lyxd »

ikrenji wrote: post #39
snickerbockers wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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 becaus…

Human brains might not be explained by the same type of math AI is explained with, but it will be some kind of math...

There's no reason to believe this to be the case. Godel says otherwise.

Re: Using secondary school maths to demystify AI

#90

Post by Tadpole9181 »

ablob wrote: post #81
CamperBob2 wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Usually it is the work of the one claiming something to prove it. So if you believe that AI does "think" you are expected to show me that it really does. Claiming it "thinks - prove otherwise" is just bad form and also opens the discussion up for moving the goalposts just as you did with your brain emulation statement. Or you could just not accept any argument made or circumvent it by stating the one trying to dispro…

Then prove to me you are thinking, lest we assume you are a philosophical zombie and need no rights or protections.

Sometimes, because of the consequences of otherwise, the order gets reversed

Post reply on HN