Is it this easy to get a paper published on Arxiv?
If LLMs Have Human-Like Attributes, Then So Does Age of Empires II
81–90 of 140 posts
Re: If LLMs Have Human-Like Attributes, Then So Does Age of Empires II
#82Either human-like attributes can be described using physics or they are magic. If they can be described using physics then they can be simulated. If they can be simulated then they can be simulated in any Turing complete system, include AoE II.
Key word being simulated
Taking this word as a "key" just leads to a philosophical zombie dead end which is not tied to anything observable.
Re: If LLMs Have Human-Like Attributes, Then So Does Age of Empires II
#83Either human-like attributes can be described using physics or they are magic. If they can be described using physics then they can be simulated. If they can be simulated then they can be simulated in any Turing complete system, include AoE II.
By that logic an abacus has human-like attributes. Just because it can simulate the processes involved does not mean it is at all practical to compute them.
Besides, LLMs are not a simulation of the physics involved in human consciousness to begin with.
Re: If LLMs Have Human-Like Attributes, Then So Does Age of Empires II
#84Earlier quoted context omitted.
On what grounds would someone establish than an LLM could be conscious but a sufficiently large/complex transformer model aimed at chess would not be conscious?
People have hypothesised that consciousness is tied to language.
And so animals wouldn’t be conscious because they don’t use language? If so, I vote that the stupidest hypothesis of the year.
Or would one count any communication between animals as language? In that case almost any interaction would count.
Re: If LLMs Have Human-Like Attributes, Then So Does Age of Empires II
#85Wow this paper is bad. I was expecting little and received genuine crackpottery. It's hard to critique this paper directly because its claims are so incoherent and decorated with so much obnoxious verbiage[1] that people aren't going to believe me when I point out what the claims actually are. Regardless, this is their paper: First, they conflate the substrate with the presentation layer. Then, they point out that Tu…
[dead]
Re: If LLMs Have Human-Like Attributes, Then So Does Age of Empires II
#86Earlier quoted context omitted.
Physically describable doesn't mean computable. You're making too many unjustified logical leaps which makes your argument circular & conflates "physical" w/ "computable".
We don't know any physical processes that allow to compute Turing-incomputable functions. An assumption that the brain uses such a process is not based on any positive knowledge.
Argument from ignorance is not as well known as other fallacies but very common in discussions about sentience, consciousness, and computability, i.e. not having evidence for something doesn't mean that thing is false. It is possible there are physical processes that are not computable & not being aware of such processes doesn't mean the alternative (everything is computable) is true.
So instead of making any unjustifiable claims like "everything physical is computable" you should instead just say "I believe consciousness is computable and that is why it is possible to instantiate it on any computational substrate, including strategy games like Age of Empires, properly arranged dominoes, and water wheels".
Re: If LLMs Have Human-Like Attributes, Then So Does Age of Empires II
#87Is it this easy to get a paper published on Arxiv?
Generally yes. Arxiv is not a publisher and doesn't exercise any editorial judgement.
Re: If LLMs Have Human-Like Attributes, Then So Does Age of Empires II
#88I see a lot of this on Substack these days. LLM enhanced essays in deep language about functional equivalence between mental states as they're known in humans and in human brains, and counterparts that exist in information processing LLMs do. And so the argument on Substact runs down the list of brain events, the list of seemingly analogous processing events, and declares equivalence. Something about it seems to abus…
This is one of those where we’re debating undefin(able?) semantics. But looking at research on the deaf it is pretty clear that thought (and therefore maybe consciousness) and language are not necessarily cleanly mutually extricable. My point about the semantics is that beyond that research it sounds like the argument is won or lost by inventing the definitions in the question one wants to defend.
Re: If LLMs Have Human-Like Attributes, Then So Does Age of Empires II
#89this paper makes a lot of modest, carefully hedged, and reasonable claims. in its tone however it's written as if it's a brutal takedown of... somebody's perspective. It's hard to tell whose or what perspective exactly. Maybe I'm just misreading the writing style. (Personally, I think the general case here is one of the better objections to computationalism about consciousness. You can make it even more absurd. There…
> There exists some isomorphism between the velocities of the molecules in a glass of water, and the states of a Turing machine simulating a human mind. So is the glass of water conscious? Could you explain this in more detail? Not being argumentative, I want to understand this argument because I've made similar ones, although less crazy sounding.
the ideas have been worked out by people more sophisticated than me, good encyclopedia article on the topic:
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/computation-physicalsyste...
Re: If LLMs Have Human-Like Attributes, Then So Does Age of Empires II
#90Wow this paper is bad. I was expecting little and received genuine crackpottery. It's hard to critique this paper directly because its claims are so incoherent and decorated with so much obnoxious verbiage[1] that people aren't going to believe me when I point out what the claims actually are. Regardless, this is their paper: First, they conflate the substrate with the presentation layer. Then, they point out that Tu…
They don't even implement their logic gates within the normal game mechanics but with scripting some bit-goats in the editor. So the AoE2 Engine is just a graphical representation of their script.
But my favorite is this one: "Corollary 1 (AoE II is Turing-Complete). Let I be an instance of AoE II with two players p0, p1. Assume p0 has two markets, a town centre, a trade cart, six villagers, and five farms; while p1 has a scout unit and only attacks p0’s buildings. Then if I has no time or size limits and the terrain allows for buildings everywhere, the game session in I is Turing-complete."
Why being so explicit about the setup with no further explanation? Isn't it anymore turing complete with seven villagers and six farms? Is it even possible that a player can trade with himself?