201–210 of 258 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well yeah, that's a false dichotomy. If you're vulnerable and a chatbot sends you into a spiral of psychosis, your pre-existing vulnerability doesn't negate the fact that a harm has been done to you. If you have a heart condition, and I shoot you with a Taser, and it kills you… I've killed you. You weren't "already dead" just because you were vulnerable.
Yes but "what is the effect of tasers on hearts" is an interesting question when tasers are brand new. If it kills people with obvious pre-existing risks then that is not very surprising. If it kills 50% of otherwise healthy people in a way we didn't anticipate, that is alarming and important to distinguish. Imagine someone does a quick survey to estimate that tasers aren't killing people we don't expect, and some re…
Given that the quote you cited was, "Are the chatbots really driving people crazy, or just catching the attention of people who were crazy already," I'd say the equivalent would be something like, "Are tasers really killing people, or were tasered heart attack victims dying already?"
And yeah, I'd be mad about that framing! The fact that the people who die had a preexisting vulnerability does not mean they were "already dying" or that they were not "really killed."
I have encountered this twice amongst people I know. I also feel that pre-AI this was already happening to people with social media - still kind of computer related as the bubble created is automated but the so called 'algorithms'
It would help if algorithms were optimised for sleep. Freezing your feed, making content more boring, nudging you to put your phone down. Same with AI, if they know you need to wake up the next day at a certain time, change the responses that add reminders to go to sleep.
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/
It takes a pretty damn complicated model of the world to start explaining things with neurobiology.
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 don’t necessarily disagree with you, but I wonder if you are not being overly reductive / pedantic. What is there then? What words (heh) do you use to distinguish between someone who makes more accurate predictions about the world than someone else?
In terms of words, they barely represent and never reference. Any statement like that serves primarily status gain, not know knowledge transmission (I proved this from the first statement above as well).
The reality is CS built a math model from totally false premises as it relates to communication and knowledge. It works for efficient value trading using symbols in place of actions. Does it have a future, no.
The problem is how do we shift to a real neurodynamic system of sharing?
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1cXtU97SCjxaHCrf8UVeQGYaj...
> First, much like LLMs, lots of people don’t really have world models. This is interesting and something I never considered in a broad sense. I have noticed how the majority of programmers I worked with do not have a mental model of the code or what it describes – it's basically vibing without an LLM, the result accidental. This is fine and perfectly workable. You need only a fraction of devs to purposefully shape t…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Neurobiology has proved this, just read Buzsaki or Northoff. The brain doesn't need models, it needs differences.
I have a PhD in cognitive science and my supervisor was a neuroscientist.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's just a blatant misunderstanding of what diagnostic criteria are. They don't Actually ("ontologically") exist, they're Virtual constructs made for a purpose. In particular, over half a century of personality research had supported the concept of personality “traits” or dimensions, rather than “disorders” or categories. That is antithetical to the basic idea of a diagnosis. "You seem like an angry person" is not…
I mean the first and foremost principle of the DSM is that if the patient is not reporting or experiencing a debilitating ability to live a functional life, and is otherwise happy with their own lived experience, then whatever symptoms they have aren't a problem. There's obviously a gulf of potential argument in that definition, but a unique form would be people who report hearing voices, but they're not hostile or a…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I have a PhD in cognitive science and my supervisor was a neuroscientist.
That's irrelevant. Cog-sci is largely folk psychology, and the problems in automating inference in AI demonstrate the model would eventually collapse. Question is how do we toss this model aside for an irreducible form of post-symbolic relationship between brains and machines?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's irrelevant. Cog-sci is largely folk psychology, and the problems in automating inference in AI demonstrate the model would eventually collapse. Question is how do we toss this model aside for an irreducible form of post-symbolic relationship between brains and machines?
I appreciate your gumption but I really think that you don't understand things as well as you think you do. Maybe read someone other than Paul Churchland.