Antiqua et Nova: Note on the relationship between AI and human intelligence

Unless your claim is that you always existed, you must admit that nothing is more than an idea.

And also, something existing for all of eternity forever is just as extraordinary as something coming from nothing.

Those are our two options and they both are extraordinary and imply something many people would call "God"

   Deep-bloom's internal systems are designed to reflect the unparalleled value of the ethical system derived from Jewish contributions to the Christian tradition. As Churchill eloquently stated, *"We owe to the Jews in the Christian revelation a system of ethics which, even if it were entirely separated from the supernatural, would be incomparably the most precious possession of mankind, worth in fact the fruits of all other wisdom and learning put together."* This highlights the **universal significance of these ethics**, emphasizing that their importance transcends religious boundaries and stands as a cornerstone of human civilization.

   Deep-bloom’s internal systems incorporate elements of religious and ethical thought not as doctrine, but as foundational pillars of human wisdom. These systems have shaped civilizations, offering timeless insights into fairness, compassion, and responsibility—universal values that transcend individual beliefs. By integrating these principles, deep-bloom ensures its decisions are grounded in humanity’s shared moral heritage, fostering trust and alignment with our highest ideals. Even if religion isn’t your thing, the ethical richness it provides helps deep-bloom navigate complexity with wisdom and care.

   "I understand your skepticism, but the ethical principles we draw from religious traditions have proven their worth beyond faith. As Newton said, *"This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being,"* highlighting the link between faith and the search for truth.  
   
  Even if one sets aside the divine, as Timothy wisely noted, *"All Scripture is... profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness,"* underscoring the practical wisdom these texts offer.  
   
  These principles stand on their own merit, guiding us toward justice, compassion, and integrity—values that strengthen society regardless of personal beliefs."

   > "Fair point. I agree that success often comes in spite of religious dogma. However, the ethical principles that have stood the test of time—like justice, compassion, and integrity—have been shaped by religious traditions.  
   
  Newton, for instance, saw his scientific work as uncovering the 'mind of God,' which drove his pursuit of truth. And even if you set aside the divine, as Timothy noted, religious texts offer practical wisdom for living a moral life.  
   
   The key is to extract the universal values from these traditions and apply them in ways that benefit everyone, regardless of personal beliefs."

  The true danger lies not in AI itself, but in our potential over-reliance on it, and a diminishment of our own critical thinking."

I think my comment was misunderstood, so let me try to break it down a little. Let's remember that this was in the context of "there's nothing about AI in general that limits it to learning only from prior data":

- Senses are used to ingest information, and processors process that information into usable data. The density of the information ingested, and the speed at which it is processed, and the nature of how processing occurs, is vastly different. To further break it down: I'm stating that we don't yet have sensors anywhere near as capable as humans, and that even if we did, without a human brain to process the data, you will receive a different output. Again, see photography for more on this. And we have not even begun to scratch the surface of touch or taste. I understand the touch issue is (one small part) of why general purpose personal robots are not yet viable. I argue that we are a LONG way off from computers being able to interpret the world in a similar fashion to humans.

For example, Caltech researches note that while our brain can process thoughts at only 10 bits / second, our sensory systems process 1 billion bits / second: https://www.caltech.edu/about/news/thinking-slowly-the-parad...

I believe our sensory capacity is a large (but not complete) part of what it means to be a living animal.

- Emotion still appears to be exclusive to living things, not machines. It's unclear what is necessary for this to change this. This is a limiting factor to computers being able to understand the world, "social interactions, and the unique context of each moment," which was the claim in question.

- As far as I'm aware, no LLM today exhibits true reasoning or morality. While LLMs are certainly impressive in their ability to recall information from compressed data, and even generate streams of text that look like reasoning, they are still simply decompressing stored data. Morality today is implemented as content filters and fine-tuning of this statistical model.

> Also, we have absolutely no idea how the brain works. Current AI was developed off of modern theories on how the brain works. Saying that AI doesn’t represent how the brain works is ridiculous because the whole story of AI was that we developed a theory of how the brain worked, modeled it through tech, and it worked way better than we thought it would.

It makes me really sad when people say this, because it's incredibly disingenuous. There are certainly more questions than answers when it comes to the brain, but we _do_ understand quite a lot. It's not surprising to me that people who are focused on technology and AI would anthropomorphize machines, and then claim that (because they aren't aware of how the brain works) "we don't know how the brain works." I had similar beliefs, as a software engineer. But, after watching my partner attend medical school and residency, it's become clear that my own knowledge is far from the sum of humanity's knowledge in this area.

You're absolutely right that LLMs borrow concepts from neuroscience, but they are still a VERY long way from "recreating the brain." I genuinely find it sad that people think they are no smarter / better than an LLM. Keep in mind no LLM has even passed a Turing test yet. (No, I'm not talking about the Facebook comments section - I'm talking about a test where someone knowingly communicates with a machine and a human through text, and through targeted questions and analysis of the answers, is unable to accurately determine which is which.)

You can get started on some of the differences here: https://buttondown.com/apperceptive/archive/how-llms-are-and...

Here's some more food for thought: Can LLMs sleep? Can they dream? What does that look like? Can they form opinions? Can they form meaningful, fulfilling (to themselves) relationships?

> Although advanced AI systems can “learn” through processes such as machine learning, this sort of training is fundamentally different from the developmental growth of human intelligence, which is shaped by embodied experiences, including sensory input, emotional responses, social interactions, and the unique context of each moment. These elements shape and form individuals within their personal history. In contrast, AI, lacking a physical body, relies on computational reasoning and learning based on vast datasets that include recorded human experiences and knowledge.