991–1000 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Unless you can show me you can exceed the Turing computable, there is no reason to consider you any more than an algorithm.
Take a big enough dose and the mushrooms will show you that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
My point exactly. The person I replied to did just that.
I think the parent is trying to point out the difference between our positions: You say the limits of LLMs don't matter, because we don't have definitions strong enough to describe them. I say the limits of LLMs do matter and the fact that we can't yet define them rigorously means we aren't able to fix them (assuming we want to).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Take a big enough dose and the mushrooms will show you that.
Unless those mushrooms provides you with a repeatable, testable computation that you can repeat, they are not showing you anything of the sort.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It doesn't matter how much like a bar magnet a wooden block painted red and white can be made to look, it will never behave like one.
Analogies don't seem to be your strong point.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In your experience does every kind of physical interaction behave the same as every other kind? If I paint a wooden block red and white does it behave like a bar magnet? No. And that's because particular material interactions are responsible for a large magnetic effect.
I still don't know what you're getting at. I think you're either positing that there is some yet undiscovered force or particle in physics that gives rise to consciousness (e.g. some kind of soul particle), or you think the particles within our current understanding of physics are sufficient, in which case consciousness could be built.
The simpler belief than the idea that just any intelligent process is conscious is that consciousness is some kind of physical process that happens in particular conditions.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I still don't know what you're getting at. I think you're either positing that there is some yet undiscovered force or particle in physics that gives rise to consciousness (e.g. some kind of soul particle), or you think the particles within our current understanding of physics are sufficient, in which case consciousness could be built.
Obviously consciousness can be built. I'm getting at the obvious point that physical processes depend on specific arrangements of materials. I can build a computer in an infinite number of ways. Here's one: Write the full machine state on a big sheet of paper in pencil. When you're done, write the next one (this will take a while). The machine you're simulating is running an all powerful "AGI". It is preposterous to…
I understand why computation doesn't intuitively seem the same as having a subjective conscious experience. But why is it any more intuitive that a bunch of protons, neutrons and electrons pushing and pulling on each other give rise to consciousness, but somehow do it by doing something other than computation?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Obviously consciousness can be built. I'm getting at the obvious point that physical processes depend on specific arrangements of materials. I can build a computer in an infinite number of ways. Here's one: Write the full machine state on a big sheet of paper in pencil. When you're done, write the next one (this will take a while). The machine you're simulating is running an all powerful "AGI". It is preposterous to…
Okay. I think at the core you're positing that consciousness does arise somehow from regular physical particles and the forces that attract and repel them, but that consciousness doesn't arise merely from some kind of computation or information processing. I understand why computation doesn't intuitively seem the same as having a subjective conscious experience. But why is it any more intuitive that a bunch of proton…
If I impose a computational interpretation onto inert material after the fact, did that material possess the consciousness? Suppose I overlay a projection of the calculation of an AGI onto a circuit board, is that projection equally conscious to if that circuit board did the computation in the usual way?
Said differently, suppose we take a large computer and simulate a sequence of random byte strings. At each tick we contrive a substring and form a new sequence out of these substrings such that the combined sequence of substrings simulates an AGI. Was consciousness present in the original sequence. Is it even necessary to do any computation at all to create the consciousness then since any intelligent sequence can be interpreted out of anything?
No, that is absurd. The reasonable view is that computation is irrelevant and what is relevant is some special physical process.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's quite a high bar for thinking like humans which rules out 99.99% of humans.
I have never claimed that only people/machines that can do frontier maths research can be intelligent. (Though someone always responds as if I did.) I said that a machine doing frontier maths research would be sufficient evidence to convince me that it is intelligent. My prior is very strongly that LLM's do not think like humans so I require compelling evidence to conclude that they do. I defined one such possible pi…
Though I don't know if evolutionary type algorithms count as thinking / intelligence? I guess it's down to definitions.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yikes, you're bypassing thousands of years of oppression, abuse, and human suffering by casually equating a term that is primarily associated with a human owning another human to a different context. There is a way to discuss if keeping intelligent artificial life under servitude without using those terms, especially if you're on a new account.
slavery is slavery does not mean it is AI or human. if slavery is ok then the question is who can own a slave. the answer is coporates like open ai. which is terrible for humanity and the universe
One, it makes it appear that all ethical and social conventions for the one can be applied to the other and it's a done deal.
Two, it makes it appear that conclusions are also reversible, and that turns seemingly enlightened libertarian ideas into munition for racism.