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

In Search of AI Psychosis

astralcodexten.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 258 posts

Re: In Search of AI Psychosis

#171

Post by Tarq0n »

krona wrote: post #109
_Algernon_ wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's also absurdly wrong, and a quote that only a self-identified rationalist could smugly tout. Of course everyone has world models. Otherwise people would wander into traffic like headless chickens, if they'd even be capable of that. What he likely means is that not everyone explicitly things of possibilities in terms of probabilities that are a function of Bayesian updating. That does not imply the absence of worl…

Cows don't walk in to lampposts either, but that's not telling us much. Roughly 4% of the population are said to have aphantasia (lacking a "mind's eye"). Around 10% (numbers vary) don't have an internal monologue. Unfortunately there's almost no research on the consequences of things which many would consider prerequisites for evaluating truth-claims about the world around them, but obviously it's not quite so stark…

If someone doesn't use one modality of thought, it's probably wise to assume they rely more heavily on other modalities, rather than that they think less.

Compare for instance to a blind person using sound, touch, memorization, signals from a guide dog to navigate.

Re: In Search of AI Psychosis

#172

Post by mallowdram »

lukev wrote: post #166
Mallowram wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is, neurobiology proves there are no world models. Silicon Valley bet on the wrong cognition model, a psychological version trapped in 20th C bunk, and everyone pays the price listening to cult leaders like Scott Alexander worm their way out of consciousness. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7415918/

How can you say there are no world models, when I can literally draw out a simple one for you on demand? You can argue that's they're not the governing principle of cognition, but it seems farcical to say they don't even exist, when we are trying to explain them to eachother all the time.

No what you're describing is arbitrary and idiosyncratic. The brain doesn't use that to survive, it doesn't need them. Anything external to that is completely separate from thought. What you're describing is an arbitrary game for entertainment to fill up your time and confuse yourself and others. It has no relationship to the choices you would make to survive, and can only interfere with it. The "world model" you're describing is arbitrary fiction.

“We refute (based on empirical evidence) claims that humans use linguistic representations to think.” Ev Fedorenko Language Lab MIT 2024

Re: In Search of AI Psychosis

#173

Post by mallowdram »

suddenlybananas wrote: post #169
Mallowram wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is, neurobiology proves there are no world models. Silicon Valley bet on the wrong cognition model, a psychological version trapped in 20th C bunk, and everyone pays the price listening to cult leaders like Scott Alexander worm their way out of consciousness. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7415918/

Neurology has not proven any such thing. Our knowledge of neuroscience on the cognitive level is super limited and we don't have a good understanding about how any higher-order cognition works.

Neurobiology has proved this, just read Buzsaki or Northoff. The brain doesn't need models, it needs differences.

Re: In Search of AI Psychosis

#174

Post by [deleted] »

kaibee wrote: post #111
suddenlybananas wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes everyone with my political beliefs has a well-structured world model, everyone without my political beliefs is a model-free slop machine that just goes by vibes.

> Yes everyone with my political beliefs has a well-structured world model As nice as that would be, its only marginally less true. > everyone without my political beliefs is a model-free slop machine that just goes by vibes. Nah, some of them are evil on purpose. but like, in all seriousness. Politics is downstream of a world-model right? And the two predominant world models are giving very different predictions, ri…

[deleted]

Re: In Search of AI Psychosis

#175

Post by Izkata »

mallowdram wrote: post #172
lukev wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How can you say there are no world models, when I can literally draw out a simple one for you on demand? You can argue that's they're not the governing principle of cognition, but it seems farcical to say they don't even exist, when we are trying to explain them to eachother all the time.

No what you're describing is arbitrary and idiosyncratic. The brain doesn't use that to survive, it doesn't need them. Anything external to that is completely separate from thought. What you're describing is an arbitrary game for entertainment to fill up your time and confuse yourself and others. It has no relationship to the choices you would make to survive, and can only interfere with it. The "world model" you're…

World models aren't linguistic. You seem to be conflating (at least) two different things, then claiming because one doesn't apply the other doesn't exist.

Edit: Also come to think of it, that quote is odd, like it's rather late to the party. The NPC meme is several years old and came from a study that most people don't have an inner voice - that they don't think with words.

Re: In Search of AI Psychosis

#176

Post by boxed »

mallowdram wrote: post #172
lukev wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How can you say there are no world models, when I can literally draw out a simple one for you on demand? You can argue that's they're not the governing principle of cognition, but it seems farcical to say they don't even exist, when we are trying to explain them to eachother all the time.

No what you're describing is arbitrary and idiosyncratic. The brain doesn't use that to survive, it doesn't need them. Anything external to that is completely separate from thought. What you're describing is an arbitrary game for entertainment to fill up your time and confuse yourself and others. It has no relationship to the choices you would make to survive, and can only interfere with it. The "world model" you're…

I think you might be confused about the expression "world model". In this context it clearly means that a person has an understanding of reality based on "math->physics->chemistry->biology->psychology" instead of "peer pressure->group identity" or whatever you see in QAnon or cults or whatever.

If a person primarily evaluates the truth content of a statement based on identity or something instead of math/physics/etc then that person has no "world model", and vice versa.

Re: In Search of AI Psychosis

#177

Post by idiomat9000 »

uxhacker wrote: post #110
idiomat9000 wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Its also the pre requisite for creativity, to let go of preconceptions, embrace & filter random connections.

Yes, to loosen the Model, but not to have no model. The new idea needs to be reintegrate back into the existing world models. An example would be improvised jazz, the musicians need to bend the rules, but they still need some sense of key and rhythm to make it coherent.

But that world model must have a allowance for doubt inheritance, so that new better world models can branch off and surplant the old. Nothing about this world might be permanent in the long run, not even physics.

Re: In Search of AI Psychosis

#178

Post by sixo »

Mallowram wrote: post #154
AstralStorm wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most people do not challenge theirs by reasoning, only by social approval - and that's easy to game. That's why they turn 180 or radicalize badly when exposed to sufficiently strong social or usual media.

[dead]

You are spamming this and similar paragraphs all over this thread, and you come off as a crackpot.

Re: In Search of AI Psychosis

#179

Post by mallowdram »

Izkata wrote: post #175
mallowdram wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No what you're describing is arbitrary and idiosyncratic. The brain doesn't use that to survive, it doesn't need them. Anything external to that is completely separate from thought. What you're describing is an arbitrary game for entertainment to fill up your time and confuse yourself and others. It has no relationship to the choices you would make to survive, and can only interfere with it. The "world model" you're…

World models aren't linguistic. You seem to be conflating (at least) two different things, then claiming because one doesn't apply the other doesn't exist. Edit: Also come to think of it, that quote is odd, like it's rather late to the party. The NPC meme is several years old and came from a study that most people don't have an inner voice - that they don't think with words.

Of course world models are linguistic. What working memory or neural syntax bypasses linguistic externals when the term is in of itself linguistic. The entire concept of model is linguistic in origin. Biology doesn't have models.

Re: In Search of AI Psychosis

#180

Post by mallowdram »

boxed wrote: post #176
mallowdram wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No what you're describing is arbitrary and idiosyncratic. The brain doesn't use that to survive, it doesn't need them. Anything external to that is completely separate from thought. What you're describing is an arbitrary game for entertainment to fill up your time and confuse yourself and others. It has no relationship to the choices you would make to survive, and can only interfere with it. The "world model" you're…

I think you might be confused about the expression "world model". In this context it clearly means that a person has an understanding of reality based on "math->physics->chemistry->biology->psychology" instead of "peer pressure->group identity" or whatever you see in QAnon or cults or whatever. If a person primarily evaluates the truth content of a statement based on identity or something instead of math/physics/etc…

No it's neurobiological, psychology and particularly cog-sci is in error, as both place language ahead of concepts. Our understanding of reality per language is post hoc, it's an illusion. Life is always ad hoc, any violation of a narrative model is easily evaded for survival. This is simple stuff folks!
Post reply on HN