101–107 of 107 posts
because the output isn't the result of cognitive reasoning, it's the result of a statistical optimization problem where the goal is maximum acceptance by the user. these tools and approaches are neither gullible nor not-gullble.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The difference between your thoughts experiment and Einstein's is that Einstein's had some testable implications. Yours is closer to belief in a teacup drifting in deep space.
And what's the unfalsifiable assertion you claim I've made?
> If you made one big enough to very closely approximate the entire quantum state of a person interacting with an environment, would you still declare that nothing it could do is "thinking"?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How is that a proof of anything? Do you imagine all chemical reactions to be instantaneous with effects that last only a short while ? >Why can someone feel love for someone just by bringing to mind the symbol which represents that person? >Why can someone feel love by seeing an illustration of someone they love? Why would other things triggering hormones and reactions mean it's not just hormones and reactions?
The point is that it is a phenomenon connected with memory and thinking processes. The reaction and release of hormones is part of the phenomenon, but not the entire phenomenon. Take this in contrast to an allergy for example. Can you trigger an allergy by remembering the food? If you see an illustration of a food you are allergic to, do you get an attack? A more similar phenomenon instead is a phobia. It is also a r…
It's not "just" in the sense that there's a lot of emergence and complexity when these things all work together but it is "just" in the sense that these are all physical unmagical processes.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The point is that it is a phenomenon connected with memory and thinking processes. The reaction and release of hormones is part of the phenomenon, but not the entire phenomenon. Take this in contrast to an allergy for example. Can you trigger an allergy by remembering the food? If you see an illustration of a food you are allergic to, do you get an attack? A more similar phenomenon instead is a phobia. It is also a r…
Memory and thinking processes are reactions and synapses firing in the brain. It's not "just" in the sense that there's a lot of emergence and complexity when these things all work together but it is "just" in the sense that these are all physical unmagical processes.
I think we agree and it was fun to write this out.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> statistical optimization problem where the goal is maximum acceptance by the user A brain could also be described like this, if you focus only on the text output.
In a brain the user to some extent is itself. LLMs do not have anything like this. They're once-through, static, and are not in any way embodied or self-referential (beyond context or what you feed back into them).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Perhaps the question was not fully understood. A function is simply a mapping from one state into another. In principle we can define it over what ever state. As such we can consider a human thinking as kind of a function. ANN are function effectively approximators. The question was - if an ANN would very closely approximate the "human thinking" function then can we still say that it is not thinking?
In order to train an ANN to approximate the "human thinking" function, we would have to know that function well enough to give it examples and counterexamples. Currently we are only training LLMs to approximate the "human blabbing" function.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What a ridiculous excuse. Leaving aside the fact the chances of your reply being in the training of the next GPT near 0, it certainly won't happen anywhere near fast enough to disprove your point to anyone reading this today. So you have nothing. Not that i'm surprised.
No, the automated plagiarism machines have nothing and I am not obligated to cure your ignorance . Let's continue the conversation after you read an AI textbook, shall we?