4 ms·

Reread it -- that's not what they're saying. They're suggesting that human-like perception is a stepping stone (ie, not necessarily a linear path towards). It r

by chaps 5y ago

Reread it -- that's not what they're saying. They're suggesting that human-like perception is a stepping stone (ie, not necessarily a linear path towards). It reads to me as if they're acknowledging a significant gap between the two.

dvt 5y ago
> They're suggesting that human-like perception is a stepping stone I fully understand the discourse; my point is that it's not (Nagel, Chalmers, Searle†, and other substance dualists would agree). We need a breakthrough akin to what analysis was to algebra in neuroscience before we even understand what our brain is doing. Whatever it's doing, it's definitely not what OpenAI implemented. † Yes, I know he says he isn't, but he kind of is[1]. [1] http://www.edwardfeser.com/unpublishedpapers/searle.html http://www.edwardfeser.com/unpublishedpapers/searle.html
- hackinthebochs 5y ago
  >Whatever it's doing, it's definitely not what OpenAI implemented. Defining intelligence as "the thing brains do" is a mistake. Planes fly, but not like birds. Biology is a great tool to understand some relationships between form and function, but mimicking biology isn't the end-goal.
  - dvt 5y ago
    > Defining intelligence as "the thing brains do" is a mistake This is a pretty bold claim. Brains are our only vantage points, and we also define life as "what's going on in a petri dish." But in any case, your point is self-defeating: what GPT-3 and DALL-E are doing is literally creating models about how we (humans) perceive the world.
    - hackinthebochs 5y ago
      >what GPT-3 and DALL-E are doing is literally creating models about how we (humans) perceive the world. Not really. They're creating models of how pixel-space covaries with word sequences over human-meaningful samples. These models are modelling the space of human meaning, not human perception.
- anikan_vader 5y ago
  I understand the gist of your comment, but perhaps you could explain more regarding the relationship between analysis and algebra? Cauchy's work certainly fundamentally changed our understanding of calculus (in that Newton and Liebnitz's earlier hand-wavy proofs were validated with a rigorous definition of a limit), but I'm not aware of any large impact it had on Galois, who was a contemporary of Cauchy.

by chaps 5y ago

dvt 5y ago

> They're suggesting that human-like perception is a stepping stone I fully understand the discourse; my point is that it's not (Nagel, Chalmers, Searle†, and other substance dualists would agree). We need a breakthrough akin to what analysis was to algebra in neuroscience before we even understand what our brain is doing. Whatever it's doing, it's definitely not what OpenAI implemented. † Yes, I know he says he isn't, but he kind of is[1]. [1] http://www.edwardfeser.com/unpublishedpapers/searle.html http://www.edwardfeser.com/unpublishedpapers/searle.html

hackinthebochs 5y ago
>Whatever it's doing, it's definitely not what OpenAI implemented. Defining intelligence as "the thing brains do" is a mistake. Planes fly, but not like birds. Biology is a great tool to understand some relationships between form and function, but mimicking biology isn't the end-goal.
- dvt 5y ago
  > Defining intelligence as "the thing brains do" is a mistake This is a pretty bold claim. Brains are our only vantage points, and we also define life as "what's going on in a petri dish." But in any case, your point is self-defeating: what GPT-3 and DALL-E are doing is literally creating models about how we (humans) perceive the world.
  - hackinthebochs 5y ago
    >what GPT-3 and DALL-E are doing is literally creating models about how we (humans) perceive the world. Not really. They're creating models of how pixel-space covaries with word sequences over human-meaningful samples. These models are modelling the space of human meaning, not human perception.
anikan_vader 5y ago
I understand the gist of your comment, but perhaps you could explain more regarding the relationship between analysis and algebra? Cauchy's work certainly fundamentally changed our understanding of calculus (in that Newton and Liebnitz's earlier hand-wavy proofs were validated with a rigorous definition of a limit), but I'm not aware of any large impact it had on Galois, who was a contemporary of Cauchy.