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

They’re made out of weights

maxleiter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

651–660 of 739 posts

Re: They’re made out of weights

#651

Post by kelseyfrog »

fc417fc802 wrote: post #642
kelseyfrog wrote: post #594

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Temperature is a model. It exists on the map.

Temperature is a classic example of an emergent phenomenon. It can be physically measured using (for example) a mercury thermometer which is an exceedingly simple construction. It is a real thing. You can touch a hot or cold surface and feel it for yourself, no map required. Anyway even if you don't like the example I chose can you see the point I was trying to make? What would it mean for a quantifiable phenomenon t…

A variable within a model can be measured. We use physics to describe the universe, but we shouldn't confuse it with the universe.

Re: They’re made out of weights

#652

Post by ACCount37 »

f_klem wrote: post #624
ACCount37 wrote: post #512

Earlier quoted context omitted.

First, fix your formatting. It's a fucking mess. Second, what is the difference? Is it that one thing has an immortal soul, and thus Actual Intelligence and Actual Reasoning and Actual Learning, and the other has no soul, and a Pale Imitation of Intelligence, At Best? Because I've seen versions of this "it's not actually thinking" for actual fucking years, and the difference between "actually thinking" and "not actua…

Agreed, formatting was kind of f , but there is no need to be rude. I wasn't saying there was any difference. All I'm saying is that the claimings the AI research field does are based on false assumptions. And from false assumptions, you cannot reach a proper conclusion. Whether an AI system can reason and think like if it where a human being, or not, I don't care. I'm fine with either: it is just technological advan…

A lot of people who "know how technology works" just went looking for copium, and found some. Now, they "know" a comforting lie - something like "it's just next token prediction".

Very comforting, that, but actively harmful to understanding.

The understanding starts with: we don't actually know how LLMs do what they do. They're more grown than designed. And it only gets worse from there. Very little comfort to be found in modern AI.

Re: They’re made out of weights

#653

Post by soerxpso »

leothetechguy wrote: post #268

>Weights helped me draft and proof this story. I'm suprised no one talks about this. AI Art isn't Art. AI Poetry isn't Art. And I'm tired of it. I know hacker news isn't the best place to complain about that but still... I'm not gonna read something somebody didn't put in the effort to write on their own. Especially not Poetry.

> I'm not gonna read something somebody didn't put in the effort to write on their own

Then don't. Nobody asked you to. Why do you people feel the need to angrily announce every time you don't read something?

Re: They’re made out of weights

#655

Post by gyomu »

wat10000 wrote: post #548
f_klem wrote: post #519

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is no need to assume the supernatural. They are machines based on what? By definition, a machine is something build by humans, or any intelligent life form (because we extend the definition from our own experience as self defined 'intelligent life forms'). Living organisms and machines do share traits under our current frame of reference in modern science. But that doesn't mean cells are machines. The right fra…

By what definition? Anyway, seems like an argument over said definitions rather than the underlying characteristics. The relevant question is whether they're purely physical objects behaving according to rules, which is being described as "machine," or whether there is something beyond that. Current understanding is contradictory: all indications are that cells and bodies are purely physical objects, except that ther…

If your definition of machine is "purely physical object behaving according to rules"[0], then one could argue that everything in the universe is a machine, which is not a very useful definition.

[0] where I assume you mean rules = "laws of physics", because if we were to choose the more conventional definition of rule = "an accepted principle or instruction that states the way things are or should be done", then your own definition doesn't apply to cells or other biological entities

Re: They’re made out of weights

#656

Post by danielmarkbruce »

fragmede wrote: post #640
danielmarkbruce wrote: post #635

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nobody called anyone any name. If you are going to quote rules, be bothered to read what was actually written. Your behavior ruins things, it doesn't make it better.

You don't think "Respectfully, you are miles out of your depth here." couldn't have just been left off?

To repeat: your behavior ruins things. Hall monitors aren't needed everywhere.

Re: They’re made out of weights

#657

Post by jordigh »

lmf4lol wrote: post #487
jordigh wrote: post #479

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, I'm ignorant, because Heidegger isn't saying anything. He didn't teach me anything. Thus I remain ignorant, unknowing. You can't even explain what he said, you just said, "go learn his words". That's not knowledge, that's not insight. That's just "the wordplay is great". But it's not content. It's merely form, it's sophistry, it's useless and meaningless. I asked a very specific question originally. What does "t…

Phew, you are quite something. I hope one day your mind will open up. All that is left to say for me is that you are really missing out on some truly great work that is a masterpiece of human thought. Your loss

No, please. EXPLAIN

wtf does this mean, in the very precise, very meaningful, so clear and direct German?

https://duckduckgo.com/?t=ffab&q=%22Die+Zeitlichkeit+zeitigt...

https://duckduckgo.com/?q=%22Das+Nichts+selbst+nichtet%22&t=...

Re: They’re made out of weights

#658

Post by fc417fc802 »

kelseyfrog wrote: post #651
fc417fc802 wrote: post #642

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Temperature is a classic example of an emergent phenomenon. It can be physically measured using (for example) a mercury thermometer which is an exceedingly simple construction. It is a real thing. You can touch a hot or cold surface and feel it for yourself, no map required. Anyway even if you don't like the example I chose can you see the point I was trying to make? What would it mean for a quantifiable phenomenon t…

A variable within a model can be measured. We use physics to describe the universe, but we shouldn't confuse it with the universe.

I agree, but what does that have to do with what I just asked? What would it mean for a quantifiable phenomenon to happen on the map as opposed to happening in the territory?

You can measure a derived value that appears on your map, but you do so by observing concrete things from within the territory. So in that case the quantifiable things happen entirely within the territory and (as you say) it is important not to confuse the map with that.

So when you earlier suggested that "Another alternative is that consciousness exists on the map" I'm asking what would that entail? How could consciousness exist on the map as opposed to within the territory? If it did, would that not imply dualism - that the map were in fact real?

Re: They’re made out of weights

#659

Post by trick-or-treat »

ludwik wrote: post #483
trick-or-treat wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No I think reinforcement training would be an example of not innate. Don't you? That's like potty training.

Is it? Both supervised learning and reinforcement learning are ways of training the model, and the difference between them is not that big. I would say that innate means "in the weights", while non-innate means things the model learned during inference, during its "lifetime".

Maybe you're right. In the weights might be the right way to frame that. What do you mean by "during its lifetime"? Do you mean things like system prompts or things in Claude.md?

It sounds like you're framing a session as a "lifetime". Whch might be right, I haven't thought of it like that before though. So when I /compact my session what's that even the equivalent of I wonder.

Re: They’re made out of weights

#660

Post by f_klem »

paulluuk wrote: post #284
f_klem wrote: post #161

After reading Being and Time from Martin Heidegger, What Computers can't still do by Hubert Dreyfus, and some authors in cognitive linguistics (Langacker and Lakoff mainly), I strongly tend to disagree with any theory about emergent consciousness in modern or future AI systems, any theory proposing a similarity between AI systems and the human brain/mind, or any theory about the computational mind. What all these the…

> These theories are flawed in the sense that they cannot account for subjective experience and agency So, I work in AI research (as a research engineer though, not a scientist). I've also studied philosophy and I'm a vegan. Yes yes, insert "they will tell you" joke here, but I promise it's actually relevant this time. First, while I studied philosophy one of the things that stuck with me the most, was the discussion…

Dreyfus builds his arguments based on Heidegger's work. You expressed it correctly: for Heidegger, in order to experience the world, we need a body that is always present in the world. It is like (but not the same) a continuum from the world, through our body, to our experience, and back. As far as I as understand it, Heidegger does not states explicitly that there is a mind or consciousness, and I think it is irrelevant in the discussion.

> but that's also just a theory. I don't believe that experience is literally impossible to engineer, as consciousness has emerged from non-conscious being through evolution, so clearly there must be some kind of mechanism for it -- and if there is, then I believe it can be replicated, we just don't really understand it well enough yet to do so

Something can be understood but no replicated. The structure and inner workings of the Sun or a complete galaxy can be understood, but not replicated. In order to replicate things, knowledge is not enough, one also needs the material capacity to do it. So we might understand at some point how experience emerges from complex systems, but nonetheless we also may be unable to replicate it.

I do believe that experience comes from this 'emergence'... but specifically from the combination of factors that make complex mammals and human beings the way they are. But it is a belief: I simply cannot base a whole field of study on it on the base that is a proved fact.

Post reply on HN