5 ms·

Isn't AI just a statistical model which 'predicts' the most likely outcome based of the input? So something like GPT just chooses the most likely word to be nex

by talhah 6y ago

Isn't AI just a statistical model which 'predicts' the most likely outcome based of the input? So something like GPT just chooses the most likely word to be next, and therefore it isn't really smart and can't actually 'understand' what it writes about. A consciousness is unpredictable and I doubt it can actually be modeled on a computer. Although it depends on how you define consciousness.

317070 6y ago
> therefore it isn't really smart and can't actually 'understand' what it writes about. The crux is that you cannot determine a mechanism to distinguish between this "Chinese room" and someone who actually 'understands'. Therefore, is there a meaningful difference?
kiba 6y ago
Isn't AI just a statistical model which 'predicts' the most likely outcome based of the input? Maybe we're like this too. A consciousness is unpredictable and I doubt it can actually be modeled on a computer. Complex, most likely. Unpredictable? I think not.
ethbr0 6y ago
This is why the field doesn't use the term AI. Things like RNNs and Transformers that include a temporally linked concept of attention based on input could be said to be "reacting" more than traditional "predicting" architectures.
nicklecompte 6y ago
> A consciousness is unpredictable and I doubt it can actually be modeled on a computer. Just FYI, in quantum computing the Church-Turing-Deutsch principle states that any physical process can be simulated by a computer[1]. So assuming the principle is true (computers can certainly simulate all known physics, in principle), and assuming consciousness is a physical process (however you define it!), computers can simulate consciousness. Many secular people seem to apply a mystic woo-woo to consciousness, but aren’t willing to take the leap that consciousness is actually metaphysical. I personally don’t think it’s metaphysical, just poorly understood philosophically and basically unexplored scientifically. If you do think it’s metaphysical then I don’t know how to persuade you otherwise. The philosophy here really is shaky! But the known science states that computers can simulate consciousness. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church–Turing–Deutsch_principle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church–Turing–Deutsch_principl...
- ilaksh 6y ago
  It's not really unexplored. See Chris Koch.
- ForHackernews 6y ago
  Isn't this assuming that quantum computers become a reality? The last I heard, nobody could prove conclusively whether their putative quantum computer was actually using quantum effects. To me this argument is like saying, "Science shows that cold fusion could certainly provide the energy needed for an antigravity machine". I'm not qualified to say whether that middle inductive step with this Church-Turing-Deutsch principle really holds or not, but I do know that neither quantum computing nor consciousness are well-understood, rigorously defined things.
  - nicklecompte 6y ago
    No, it actually has nothing to do with quantum computing specifically, it applies for classical tape-based Turing machines (or an x86 with unbounded time and memory). It basically says “anything physical is computable.”
    - ForHackernews 6y ago
      Not according to that wikipedia link: > He observed that classical physics, which makes use of the concept of real numbers, cannot be simulated by a Turing machine, which can only represent computable reals. Deutsch proposed that quantum computers may actually obey the CTD principle, assuming that the laws of quantum physics can completely describe every physical process.
      - nicklecompte 6y ago
        Deutsch was mistaken, at least on that specific issue of the uncomputable reals being a fundamental limitation on Turing machines doing physics: https://michaelnielsen.org/blog/interesting-problems-the-church-turing-deutsch-principle/ https://michaelnielsen.org/blog/interesting-problems-the-chu... It’s also incidental to the overall discussion, Deutsch was simply postulating about a limitation in Turing machines (in the same way that deterministic finite automata are fundamentally limited in the class of problems they can solve). I don’t necessarily feel like arguing further about this tiny issue, or a distraction about your misconceptions regarding quantum computing[1]; this problem has been widely discussed since Deutsch and there are plenty of sources out there. The point is that it takes a huge cognitive leap to suggest that consciousness is either fundamentally spiritual, or part of a (hypothetical) class of physics problems that can’t be solved by a computer. [1] Quantum computers are real. You are confused by news stories about private companies with outlandish claims of powerful quantum computers. In physics laboratories, small quantum computers have existed for a few decades. Typically they are too small to do anything useful (I saw one in person that could factor any positive integer... if it was less than 15).
tantalor 6y ago
https://www.cplusplus.com/reference/cstdlib/rand/ https://www.cplusplus.com/reference/cstdlib/rand/
marcyb5st 6y ago
I believe you are correct about the current implementation of AIs as they try to minimize a loss function or maximize a reward. I also agree that the definition of consciousness is very subjective. In my opinion, what's missing for conscious AI is a way to model causality. If we ever achieve that it's just a matter of computational resources since an AI can seep through the cause and effect chain (graph maybe) until it finds what needs to be done to obtain a wanted outcome. That is critical thinking and which I strongly associate with consciousness and/or intelligence.
sullyj3 6y ago
This is one of those cases where the word "just" is doing a whole lot of work. You can't "just" away the fact that predicting outcomes is one of the primary functions of intelligence. If you had a language model that really could perfectly predict what you were going to say next, it would have to have a complete working predictive model of you and your reasoning.

by talhah 6y ago

317070 6y ago

> therefore it isn't really smart and can't actually 'understand' what it writes about. The crux is that you cannot determine a mechanism to distinguish between this "Chinese room" and someone who actually 'understands'. Therefore, is there a meaningful difference?

kiba 6y ago

Isn't AI just a statistical model which 'predicts' the most likely outcome based of the input? Maybe we're like this too. A consciousness is unpredictable and I doubt it can actually be modeled on a computer. Complex, most likely. Unpredictable? I think not.

ethbr0 6y ago

This is why the field doesn't use the term AI. Things like RNNs and Transformers that include a temporally linked concept of attention based on input could be said to be "reacting" more than traditional "predicting" architectures.

nicklecompte 6y ago

> A consciousness is unpredictable and I doubt it can actually be modeled on a computer. Just FYI, in quantum computing the Church-Turing-Deutsch principle states that any physical process can be simulated by a computer[1]. So assuming the principle is true (computers can certainly simulate all known physics, in principle), and assuming consciousness is a physical process (however you define it!), computers can simulate consciousness. Many secular people seem to apply a mystic woo-woo to consciousness, but aren’t willing to take the leap that consciousness is actually metaphysical. I personally don’t think it’s metaphysical, just poorly understood philosophically and basically unexplored scientifically. If you do think it’s metaphysical then I don’t know how to persuade you otherwise. The philosophy here really is shaky! But the known science states that computers can simulate consciousness. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church–Turing–Deutsch_principle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church–Turing–Deutsch_principl...

ilaksh 6y ago
It's not really unexplored. See Chris Koch.
ForHackernews 6y ago
Isn't this assuming that quantum computers become a reality? The last I heard, nobody could prove conclusively whether their putative quantum computer was actually using quantum effects. To me this argument is like saying, "Science shows that cold fusion could certainly provide the energy needed for an antigravity machine". I'm not qualified to say whether that middle inductive step with this Church-Turing-Deutsch principle really holds or not, but I do know that neither quantum computing nor consciousness are well-understood, rigorously defined things.
- nicklecompte 6y ago
  No, it actually has nothing to do with quantum computing specifically, it applies for classical tape-based Turing machines (or an x86 with unbounded time and memory). It basically says “anything physical is computable.”
  - ForHackernews 6y ago
    Not according to that wikipedia link: > He observed that classical physics, which makes use of the concept of real numbers, cannot be simulated by a Turing machine, which can only represent computable reals. Deutsch proposed that quantum computers may actually obey the CTD principle, assuming that the laws of quantum physics can completely describe every physical process.
    - nicklecompte 6y ago
      Deutsch was mistaken, at least on that specific issue of the uncomputable reals being a fundamental limitation on Turing machines doing physics: https://michaelnielsen.org/blog/interesting-problems-the-church-turing-deutsch-principle/ https://michaelnielsen.org/blog/interesting-problems-the-chu... It’s also incidental to the overall discussion, Deutsch was simply postulating about a limitation in Turing machines (in the same way that deterministic finite automata are fundamentally limited in the class of problems they can solve). I don’t necessarily feel like arguing further about this tiny issue, or a distraction about your misconceptions regarding quantum computing[1]; this problem has been widely discussed since Deutsch and there are plenty of sources out there. The point is that it takes a huge cognitive leap to suggest that consciousness is either fundamentally spiritual, or part of a (hypothetical) class of physics problems that can’t be solved by a computer. [1] Quantum computers are real. You are confused by news stories about private companies with outlandish claims of powerful quantum computers. In physics laboratories, small quantum computers have existed for a few decades. Typically they are too small to do anything useful (I saw one in person that could factor any positive integer... if it was less than 15).

tantalor 6y ago

https://www.cplusplus.com/reference/cstdlib/rand/ https://www.cplusplus.com/reference/cstdlib/rand/

marcyb5st 6y ago

I believe you are correct about the current implementation of AIs as they try to minimize a loss function or maximize a reward. I also agree that the definition of consciousness is very subjective. In my opinion, what's missing for conscious AI is a way to model causality. If we ever achieve that it's just a matter of computational resources since an AI can seep through the cause and effect chain (graph maybe) until it finds what needs to be done to obtain a wanted outcome. That is critical thinking and which I strongly associate with consciousness and/or intelligence.

sullyj3 6y ago

This is one of those cases where the word "just" is doing a whole lot of work. You can't "just" away the fact that predicting outcomes is one of the primary functions of intelligence. If you had a language model that really could perfectly predict what you were going to say next, it would have to have a complete working predictive model of you and your reasoning.