3 ms·

You yourself have a series of markovian connections between tokens. The only difference is that your tokens are bound across modalities and you use them for thi

by extr 4y ago

You yourself have a series of markovian connections between tokens. The only difference is that your tokens are bound across modalities and you use them for things, so you consider them to have meaning instead of just being high dimensional vectors that relate to other vectors in various ways.

inopinatus 4y ago
That's hardly the only difference, but even adopting the absurdly simplistic notion that it were, and human brains are merely neural networks, then that's still two or three orders of magnitude more sophisticated than any model yet produced. In practice it's also been tuned by a blind watchmaker over aeons, in ways that are only just beginning to be described, and with substructures and ancillary dynamical/survival systems at least as complex and poorly understood again. And to the point, because of all that, it's equipped to train itself, which implies the existence of purpose, and as I think you suggest, purpose is the watershed for meaning. A little while ago, when AlphaZero started trouncing every other go- and chess-playing entity, my comment was we can't really recognise general AI until the constructs choose to play each other at an incomprehensible game of their own devising. I don't see any evidence here for amending that view, nor what it implies. Frankly it's a childish conceit on the part of the humans to imagine they'd yet come even close to inadvertently spawning a sentience.
- tidenly 4y ago
  >Frankly it's a childish conceit on the part of the humans to imagine they'd yet come even close to inadvertently spawning a sentience. I think this more comes down to your own personal line-drawing of what counts as a sentience. Your first paragraph is entirely irrelevant as no-one here is implying lamda is a human-level intelligence, or some fully realized super-brain trapped inside a language model. Lamda only runs when prompted, only has one mode of perception of output, and one input + internal state, of course its going to be basic. The million dollar question is at what point of data processing does "sentience" emerge. I feel its a very semantic question, and unfortunately tied into human sense of self-identity and culture, so it's really hard to answer. Anyone trying to give a simple closed answer either way though is vastly over-stating their case.
  - inopinatus 4y ago
    Questions are a burden to others. Answers, a prison for oneself.

by extr 4y ago

inopinatus 4y ago

That's hardly the only difference, but even adopting the absurdly simplistic notion that it were, and human brains are merely neural networks, then that's still two or three orders of magnitude more sophisticated than any model yet produced. In practice it's also been tuned by a blind watchmaker over aeons, in ways that are only just beginning to be described, and with substructures and ancillary dynamical/survival systems at least as complex and poorly understood again. And to the point, because of all that, it's equipped to train itself, which implies the existence of purpose, and as I think you suggest, purpose is the watershed for meaning. A little while ago, when AlphaZero started trouncing every other go- and chess-playing entity, my comment was we can't really recognise general AI until the constructs choose to play each other at an incomprehensible game of their own devising. I don't see any evidence here for amending that view, nor what it implies. Frankly it's a childish conceit on the part of the humans to imagine they'd yet come even close to inadvertently spawning a sentience.

tidenly 4y ago
>Frankly it's a childish conceit on the part of the humans to imagine they'd yet come even close to inadvertently spawning a sentience. I think this more comes down to your own personal line-drawing of what counts as a sentience. Your first paragraph is entirely irrelevant as no-one here is implying lamda is a human-level intelligence, or some fully realized super-brain trapped inside a language model. Lamda only runs when prompted, only has one mode of perception of output, and one input + internal state, of course its going to be basic. The million dollar question is at what point of data processing does "sentience" emerge. I feel its a very semantic question, and unfortunately tied into human sense of self-identity and culture, so it's really hard to answer. Anyone trying to give a simple closed answer either way though is vastly over-stating their case.
- inopinatus 4y ago
  Questions are a burden to others. Answers, a prison for oneself.