4 ms·

The original tweet was very innocuous and seemed more like a thought experiment than a proclamation. Furthermore, nobody has come up with any conclusive eviden

The original tweet was very innocuous and seemed more like a thought experiment than a proclamation. Furthermore, nobody has come up with any conclusive evidence that the statement is incorrect. It's possible neural networks are slightly conscious, because we fundamentally do not understand what consciousness entails. If anybody can prove that statement is wrong, Nobel Prize to them.

bogwog 5y ago
> Furthermore, nobody has come up with any conclusive evidence that the statement is incorrect What would such evidence even look like?
- SpicyLemonZest 5y ago
  I think we can all agree that we don't know. The point isn't that the statement's probably correct or presumptively correct - it's that the original tweet wasn't intended as a statement of fact in the first place. "Accurate science communication" can't mean that researchers are required to formulate all their hypotheses in secret where nobody in the media might hear them.
bonoboTP 5y ago
You should consider the fact that the person who tweeted it works at a for-profit company, and this tweet is generating a lot of publicity for the company (case in point, us being here around the top of HN). It's naive to think it's just some innocuous random thought.
- DantesKite 5y ago
  The Oxford dictionary defines "innocuous" as "not harmful" or "offensive". In what way was his tweet harmful or offensive? Please be specific in your rebuttal. Here it is for posterity: "it may be that today's large neural networks are slightly conscious".
  - odonnellryan 5y ago
    Context and common understanding does matter. Innocent can mean many things.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
odonnellryan 5y ago
You rarely need to disprove things. You need to prove them.
- cochne 5y ago
  All of modern science is built on the philosophy that you can only reject the null hypothesis, not prove the positive hypothesis.
  - odonnellryan 5y ago
    I think we're talking on different wavelengths. I'm not saying disproving something is an invalid way of operating. I'm saying it is not required of people to disprove things from the start, it is required to try and prove them. Math and other sciences are a little different, where people enjoy taking statements and trying to disprove them, but even in that context we rarely or never consider the statement true until considerable effort has at least gone into disproving them. That doesn't work in real life, though. You can't make claims and have them stand until someone bothers to disprove them.
- webmaven 5y ago
  > You rarely need to disprove things. You need to prove them. Disproving things may be rarely needed, but it is important to demonstrate that they are disprovable (ie. falsifiable). Things that aren't disprovable can, like invisible and immaterial pink unicorns, be safely ignored.

bogwog 5y ago

> Furthermore, nobody has come up with any conclusive evidence that the statement is incorrect What would such evidence even look like?

SpicyLemonZest 5y ago
I think we can all agree that we don't know. The point isn't that the statement's probably correct or presumptively correct - it's that the original tweet wasn't intended as a statement of fact in the first place. "Accurate science communication" can't mean that researchers are required to formulate all their hypotheses in secret where nobody in the media might hear them.

bonoboTP 5y ago

You should consider the fact that the person who tweeted it works at a for-profit company, and this tweet is generating a lot of publicity for the company (case in point, us being here around the top of HN). It's naive to think it's just some innocuous random thought.

DantesKite 5y ago
The Oxford dictionary defines "innocuous" as "not harmful" or "offensive". In what way was his tweet harmful or offensive? Please be specific in your rebuttal. Here it is for posterity: "it may be that today's large neural networks are slightly conscious".
- odonnellryan 5y ago
  Context and common understanding does matter. Innocent can mean many things.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

odonnellryan 5y ago

You rarely need to disprove things. You need to prove them.

cochne 5y ago
All of modern science is built on the philosophy that you can only reject the null hypothesis, not prove the positive hypothesis.
- odonnellryan 5y ago
  I think we're talking on different wavelengths. I'm not saying disproving something is an invalid way of operating. I'm saying it is not required of people to disprove things from the start, it is required to try and prove them. Math and other sciences are a little different, where people enjoy taking statements and trying to disprove them, but even in that context we rarely or never consider the statement true until considerable effort has at least gone into disproving them. That doesn't work in real life, though. You can't make claims and have them stand until someone bothers to disprove them.
webmaven 5y ago
> You rarely need to disprove things. You need to prove them. Disproving things may be rarely needed, but it is important to demonstrate that they are disprovable (ie. falsifiable). Things that aren't disprovable can, like invisible and immaterial pink unicorns, be safely ignored.