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

I'm scared about biological computing

kuber.studio

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 271 posts

Re: I'm scared about biological computing

#171

Post by roenxi »

noosphr wrote: post #127
pjs_ wrote: post #25

Be careful about how you interpret that paper. It looks really impressive -- real neurons in a petri dish seem to successfully (if amateurishly) murk a few imps. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yRV8fSw6HaE But there's more to the setup than you might assume from a casual reading. Here's the code used for that demo: https://github.com/SeanCole02/doom-neuron So there is an entire pytorch stack wrapped around the myster…

All opinions are my own: The whole point of the CNNs is to act like a auto encoder for input and an auto decoder for output. The only reason why this is done in the first place is because the number of electrodes in the dish is pitiful and has no chance of describing something as complex as Doom. They are there to create a latent space that can be fed through 60 odd electrodes and decode the neuron latent space into…

> The only reason why this is done in the first place is because the number of electrodes in the dish is pitiful and has no chance of describing something as complex as Doom.

This sounds a bit suspicious though. If we're confident that the neurons aren't complex enough to understand Doom, how can they be said to be complex enough to play it? Playing a game is a loose term but it seems difficult to say that it is playing something that it can't comprehend or interact with. By analogy, if there was a CNN between me and a game of Doom people would say "roenxi is cheating with an AI aim-bot", not 'roenxi is playing Doom".

The whole thing is still pretty cool though. Hopefully the neurons are having fun, I'm sure we all wish them what happiness they can muster.

Re: I'm scared about biological computing

#172

Post by fragmede »

throw310822 wrote: post #34
behrlich wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think so! You independently stumbled upon the "China brain" thought experiment. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China_brain - is "the nation of china simulating a brain" conscious?

From this and Searle's "Chinese room" at least we know for sure that any conscious entity of this type must speak Chinese.

Do Chinese people call it the English room experiment?

Re: I'm scared about biological computing

#174

Post by majorbugger »

slibhb wrote: post #143
Tharre wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

LLMs still do not pass the turing test as it is commonly understood. Ask the right questions, and it becomes apparent very quickly which party is the machine and which is the human. Hell, there are enough people on here that can probably tell them apart just from the way that LLMs write. But it's also easy to argue that LLMs do pass the turing test just because it's so vague. How many questions can I ask? What's the…

> LLMs still do not pass the turing test as it is commonly understood. Ask the right questions, and it becomes apparent very quickly which party is the machine and which is the human. Hell, there are enough people on here that can probably tell them apart just from the way that LLMs write. LLMs obviously would pass a Turing test if they were designed to. But they aren't, they don't hide the fact that they're LLMs.

It's not obvious at all

Re: I'm scared about biological computing

#175

Post by noosphr »

roenxi wrote: post #171
noosphr wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All opinions are my own: The whole point of the CNNs is to act like a auto encoder for input and an auto decoder for output. The only reason why this is done in the first place is because the number of electrodes in the dish is pitiful and has no chance of describing something as complex as Doom. They are there to create a latent space that can be fed through 60 odd electrodes and decode the neuron latent space into…

> The only reason why this is done in the first place is because the number of electrodes in the dish is pitiful and has no chance of describing something as complex as Doom. This sounds a bit suspicious though. If we're confident that the neurons aren't complex enough to understand Doom, how can they be said to be complex enough to play it? Playing a game is a loose term but it seems difficult to say that it is play…

There isn't enough input electrodes to encode a doom frame into the multi electrode array without compression.

That's all the artificial neural networks are doing.

If we could have gotten an MEA with 320x200 electrodes we wouldn't have used any encoding and just let the neurons figure it out. Instead it is an 8x8 grid.

Re: I'm scared about biological computing

#176

Post by krzat »

slibhb wrote: post #60

I read an interesting book about consciousness recently: The Hidden Spring by Mark Solms. Solms argues, I think convincingly, that consciousness fundamentally has to do with emotions and not cognition. Consciousness is not produced by the cortex but rather by the brainstem, where signals from all over the body converge (e.g. pain, hunger, itchiness, etc). If that argument is true then a petri-dish of neurons is unlik…

It's intriguing that some parts of brains are conscious, some are not. What's the difference?

Re: I'm scared about biological computing

#177

Post by roenxi »

noosphr wrote: post #175
roenxi wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The only reason why this is done in the first place is because the number of electrodes in the dish is pitiful and has no chance of describing something as complex as Doom. This sounds a bit suspicious though. If we're confident that the neurons aren't complex enough to understand Doom, how can they be said to be complex enough to play it? Playing a game is a loose term but it seems difficult to say that it is play…

There isn't enough input electrodes to encode a doom frame into the multi electrode array without compression. That's all the artificial neural networks are doing. If we could have gotten an MEA with 320x200 electrodes we wouldn't have used any encoding and just let the neurons figure it out. Instead it is an 8x8 grid.

We've got LLMs that seem to be smarter than anyone I'm talking to day-to-day and one useful model of them is just "compression". Compression is turning out to be a pretty key operation in intelligence and understanding (in fact, it seems to be intelligence and understanding in key ways). If we compress Doom into "shoot" and "the press buttons in the most favourable way to the player" then good compression could let a fair coin play Doom well if someone flips it fast enough.

I mean maybe ANN just means sampling the screen in which case I'm not sure why we're talking about it as a "network". But the type of compression seems critical.

Have I watched any of the videos or read the code? No I have not.

Re: I'm scared about biological computing

#178

Post by subscribed »

OkayPhysicist wrote: post #120
NoMoreNicksLeft wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>How does your entangled fatty tissue achieved consciousness? It doesn't. Humans aren't conscious. Nor are any other organisms. They don't have souls either, but that goes without saying since it's just an archaic synonym. Mostly this occurs because humans have painted themselves into corners morally-speaking, and they need justification to eat bacon or grow their population. And apparently "because we can and we wan…

This is a tired point of discussion, brought up exclusively by contrarians trying to be edgy. No one earnestly believes that they don't have free will, because if they did, it would result in obvious deviance in behavior. Everyone treats each other as if they have choices, and in turn behaves like they have choices. If the assertion is that we don't have free will, but are forced to (due to our lack of free will) to…

Funnily enough I share parts of both of your opinions - due to the lack of the better explanation for what I'm experiencing I do believe I'm conscious (something LLM would say!), but I'm also not entirely convicted I have a free will - it might be free-ish, within the confines of some narrow set of parameters, like a inside of the straw for the ant.

However once again for the lack of the evidence to the contrary, I treat myself and others like we have a free will (for the most part).

Sabine Hossenfelder has a fascinating video on the subject.

Re: I'm scared about biological computing

#180

Post by Gooblebrai »

akomtu wrote: post #105
mrweasel wrote: post #50

In the same line of thinking: I'm a little concerned that humans are, to some extend, just LLMs in a meat suit.

They aren't. However there is a coordinated effort to push this pseudo-philosophy on masses. On the one hand it degrades the idea of human consciousness or soul, calling it a fiction. On the other hand it props the AI, calling its pile of transistors almost brain-like.

> it degrades the idea of human consciousness or soul, calling it a fiction

I guess they usually mean that is fiction the part of the story where is said that it is separated from the brain

Post reply on HN