4 ms·
I mean the miniature physics simulation of me actually imagining another embodied human falling off of a beam. There is a huge knowledge of the physical world e
by rland 6y ago
I mean the miniature physics simulation of me actually imagining another embodied human falling off of a beam. There is a huge knowledge of the physical world encoded into that. Think about it, you can viscerally imagine balancing on a beam, losing your footing, falling, and the subsequent forces and accelerations on all parts of your body during and after the fall, in real time. All of that information is in our model, and none of it is in GPT's. Everyone has this, it's builtin. I'm not talking about Newton's Laws here.
The physical mechanics of being an embodied thing isn't the only example of this. Any experiential knowledge, any knowledge with feedback suffers from this. And any knowledge that is difficult to put into words, like emotional knowledge, interpersonal knowledge, etc., will be off-limits.
That's my point.
- mercer 6y agoWhile I don't disagree, if I were to have the same conversation I would probably be spending more time thinking about the appropriate response than trying to remember and simulate an experience even remotely similar. So I'd be more like GPT, perhaps?