5 ms·

The brain is also just a "complex math program". Since math is just the language we use to describe the world. I don't feel this argument has any weight at all.

Supermancho 4y ago
> The brain is also just a "complex math program". This is not a fact.
- rowanG077 4y ago
  Explain yourself. There is not a understood natural phenomenon which we could not capture in math. If you argue behavior of the brain cannot be modeled using a complex math program you are claiming the brain is qualitative different then any mechanism known to man since the dawn of time. The physics that gives rise to the brain is pretty much known. We can model all the protons, electrons and photons incredibly accurately. It's an extraordinary claim you say the brain doesn't function according to these known mechanisms.
  - bqmjjx0kac 4y ago
    > There is not a understood natural phenomenon which we could not capture in math. If all you have is a hammer... The nature of consciousness is an open question. We don't know whether the brain is equivalent to a Turing machine.
  - moralestapia 4y ago
    >Explain yourself. Why? Burden of proof is on you.
  - heavyset_go 4y ago
    > We can model all the protons, electrons and photons incredibly accurately. We can't even accurately model a receptor protein on a cell or the binding of its ligands, nor can we accurately simulate a single neuron. This is one of those hard problems in computing and medicine. It is very much an open question about how or if we can model complex biology accurately like that.
    - rowanG077 4y ago
      I didn't say we can simulate it. There is a massive leap from what I said to being able to simulate it.
      - Supermancho 4y ago
        > There is not a understood natural phenomenon which we could not capture in math. This is a belief about our ability to construct models, not a fact. Models are leaky abstractions, by nature. Models using models are exponentially leaky. > I didn't say we can simulate it. Mathematics (at large) is descriptive. We describe matter mathematically, as it's convenient to make predictions with a shared modeling of the world, but the quantum of matter is not an equation. f() at any scale of complexity, does not transmute.
      - heavyset_go 4y ago
        I'm using simulate as a synonym for model. For any biological model at the atomic, molecular and protein levels, accuracy is key for useful models. What I'm saying is that accuracy at that level is a hard problem in computing and biology, and even simple protein interactions are hard problems.
  - CogitoCogito 4y ago
    > There is not a understood natural phenomenon which we could not capture in math. Does the brain fall in into the category of “understood natural phenomenon”? Is it “understood”? What does “understood” mean in this context?
  - layer8 4y ago
    You are confusing the nondiscrete math of physics with the discrete math of computation. Even with unlimited computational resources, we can’t simulate arbitrary physical systems exactly, or even with limited error bounds (see chaos theory). What a program (mathematical or not) in the turing-machine sense can do is only a tiny, tiny subset of what physics can do. Personally I believe it’s likely that the brain can essentially be reduced to a computation, but we have no proof of that.
  - nodogoto 4y ago
    > There is not a understood natural phenomenon which we could not capture in math. You are saying "If we know how something works, we can explain how it works using math." But we know almost nothing about how the brain works. > The physics that gives rise to the brain is pretty much known. ...no it is not! No physicist would describe any physical phenomenon as being "pretty much known". Let alone cognition. We don't even have a complete atomic model.
  - chlorion 4y ago
    I think you are mostly correct but most people don't like this explanation and choose to believe in magic or spirits or whatever instead of physical reality. For some reason the brain is "magic" and non-physical unlike other organs (and everything else that exists) to most people. It's almost impossible to convince anyone of this though and it's not even worth trying.
    - Supermancho 4y ago
      > most people don't like this explanation and choose to believe in magic or spirits or whatever instead of physical reality. You have it reversed. Math is a language tool to describe things, in a limited fashion (our current modeling). One is physical matter (even if it's antimatter). If you believe that there will be a language that can describe anything, it still doesn't manifest matter by speaking that language or describing it...unless you're into magic or spirits or whatever. This disconnect has nothing to do with how well we do or do not understand physical phenomena. I think what the OP meant to say (and probably you support) is how the "mind" or how we think, can be described with mathematical models. Maybe one day we will have a full understanding, but we're not there yet and not currently in a way that is legally compelling.
lisper 4y ago
Somewhere in the complex math is the origin of whatever it is in intellectual property that we deem worthy of protection. Because we are humans, we take the complex math done by human brains as worthy of protection by fiat. When a painter paints a tree, we assign the property interest in the painting to the human painter, not the tree, notwithstanding that the tree made an essential contribution to the content. The whole point is to protect the interests of humans (to give them an incentive to work). There is no other reason to even entertain the concept of "property".
- rowanG077 4y ago
  Creations by AI should obviously be protected by fiat as well. Anything else is a ridiculous double standard that will stifle progress.
  - layer8 4y ago
    As long as AIs are incapable of recognizing when they are plagiarizing, as humans are generally capable of, the double standard seems entirely warranted.
    - Filligree 4y ago
      > as humans are generally capable of Citation needed. I've never plagiarised on purpose, sure, but I've caught myself at least several dozen times well after the act.
      - layer8 4y ago
        Well, that you caught yourself is already something that makes a difference. It would already change the equation if Copilot would send an email saying “Hey, that snippet xyz I suggested yesterday is actually plagiarized from repo abc. I’m truly sorry about that, I’ll do my best to be more careful in the future.” As far as “citation needed”, humans are being convicted for plagiarism, so it is generally assumed that they are able to tell and hence can be held responsible for it. Responsibility or liability is really the crux here. As long as AIs can’t be made liable for their actions (output) like humans or legal entities can, instead the AI operators must be held accountable, and it’s arguably their responsibility to take all practical measures to prevent their AIs from plagiarizing, or from otherwise violating license terms.
kadoban 4y ago
The legal world tends to be less interested in these kind of logical gotchas than engineering types would like. I don't see a judge caring about that brain framing at all. Not to mention, if your brain starts outputting Microsoft copyright code, they're going to sue the shit out of you and win, so I'm not sure how that would help even so.
yoyohello13 4y ago
So if I read the windows explorer source code, then later produced a line for line copy (without referring back to the source). Microsoft couldn't sue me?
bombolo 4y ago
> The brain is also just a "complex math program" Source?
- rowanG077 4y ago
  The physics that gives rise to the brain is pretty much known. We can model all the protons, electrons and photons incredibly accurately.
  - iampuero 4y ago
    I feel like this is a massive oversimplification... In this answer, you're completely ignoring the massive fact that we cannot create a human brain. Having mathematical models about particles does not mean we have "solved" the brain. Unless you're also believe that these LLMs are actually behaving just like human brains, in that have consciousness, they have logic, they dream, they have nightmares, they produce emotions such as fear, love, anger, that they grow and change over time, that they controls body, your lungs, heart, etc... You see my point, right? Surely you see that the statement 'The brain is also just a "complex math program"' is at best extremely over-simplistic.
  - bqmjjx0kac 4y ago
    > The physics that gives rise to the brain is pretty much known There is a gaping chasm between observing known physics, and saying it is the cause of consciousness. You should read this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_mind https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_mind [ Edit: better link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_problem_of_consciousness https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_problem_of_consciousness ]
  - goatlover 4y ago
    There's certainly no model of a brain at the level of protons, electrons and photons. That's way beyond our level of mathematical understanding or computational ability. Biology isn't understood at the level of physics.
fsflover 4y ago
It might be. If your brain generated verbatim someone's code without following its license, you would also break copyright, wouldn't you?
kyruzic 4y ago
No it's actually not.
willhslade 4y ago
So how and why do we solve the halting problem?
willhslade 4y ago
Also, to pile on, if I use my brain to read GPL source code and then type it in again on my own, I'm pretty sure I'm guilty of violating copyright.

Supermancho 4y ago

> The brain is also just a "complex math program". This is not a fact.

rowanG077 4y ago
Explain yourself. There is not a understood natural phenomenon which we could not capture in math. If you argue behavior of the brain cannot be modeled using a complex math program you are claiming the brain is qualitative different then any mechanism known to man since the dawn of time. The physics that gives rise to the brain is pretty much known. We can model all the protons, electrons and photons incredibly accurately. It's an extraordinary claim you say the brain doesn't function according to these known mechanisms.
- bqmjjx0kac 4y ago
  > There is not a understood natural phenomenon which we could not capture in math. If all you have is a hammer... The nature of consciousness is an open question. We don't know whether the brain is equivalent to a Turing machine.
- moralestapia 4y ago
  >Explain yourself. Why? Burden of proof is on you.
- heavyset_go 4y ago
  > We can model all the protons, electrons and photons incredibly accurately. We can't even accurately model a receptor protein on a cell or the binding of its ligands, nor can we accurately simulate a single neuron. This is one of those hard problems in computing and medicine. It is very much an open question about how or if we can model complex biology accurately like that.
  - rowanG077 4y ago
    I didn't say we can simulate it. There is a massive leap from what I said to being able to simulate it.
    - Supermancho 4y ago
      > There is not a understood natural phenomenon which we could not capture in math. This is a belief about our ability to construct models, not a fact. Models are leaky abstractions, by nature. Models using models are exponentially leaky. > I didn't say we can simulate it. Mathematics (at large) is descriptive. We describe matter mathematically, as it's convenient to make predictions with a shared modeling of the world, but the quantum of matter is not an equation. f() at any scale of complexity, does not transmute.
    - heavyset_go 4y ago
      I'm using simulate as a synonym for model. For any biological model at the atomic, molecular and protein levels, accuracy is key for useful models. What I'm saying is that accuracy at that level is a hard problem in computing and biology, and even simple protein interactions are hard problems.
- CogitoCogito 4y ago
  > There is not a understood natural phenomenon which we could not capture in math. Does the brain fall in into the category of “understood natural phenomenon”? Is it “understood”? What does “understood” mean in this context?
- layer8 4y ago
  You are confusing the nondiscrete math of physics with the discrete math of computation. Even with unlimited computational resources, we can’t simulate arbitrary physical systems exactly, or even with limited error bounds (see chaos theory). What a program (mathematical or not) in the turing-machine sense can do is only a tiny, tiny subset of what physics can do. Personally I believe it’s likely that the brain can essentially be reduced to a computation, but we have no proof of that.
- nodogoto 4y ago
  > There is not a understood natural phenomenon which we could not capture in math. You are saying "If we know how something works, we can explain how it works using math." But we know almost nothing about how the brain works. > The physics that gives rise to the brain is pretty much known. ...no it is not! No physicist would describe any physical phenomenon as being "pretty much known". Let alone cognition. We don't even have a complete atomic model.
- chlorion 4y ago
  I think you are mostly correct but most people don't like this explanation and choose to believe in magic or spirits or whatever instead of physical reality. For some reason the brain is "magic" and non-physical unlike other organs (and everything else that exists) to most people. It's almost impossible to convince anyone of this though and it's not even worth trying.
  - Supermancho 4y ago
    > most people don't like this explanation and choose to believe in magic or spirits or whatever instead of physical reality. You have it reversed. Math is a language tool to describe things, in a limited fashion (our current modeling). One is physical matter (even if it's antimatter). If you believe that there will be a language that can describe anything, it still doesn't manifest matter by speaking that language or describing it...unless you're into magic or spirits or whatever. This disconnect has nothing to do with how well we do or do not understand physical phenomena. I think what the OP meant to say (and probably you support) is how the "mind" or how we think, can be described with mathematical models. Maybe one day we will have a full understanding, but we're not there yet and not currently in a way that is legally compelling.

lisper 4y ago

Somewhere in the complex math is the origin of whatever it is in intellectual property that we deem worthy of protection. Because we are humans, we take the complex math done by human brains as worthy of protection by fiat. When a painter paints a tree, we assign the property interest in the painting to the human painter, not the tree, notwithstanding that the tree made an essential contribution to the content. The whole point is to protect the interests of humans (to give them an incentive to work). There is no other reason to even entertain the concept of "property".

rowanG077 4y ago
Creations by AI should obviously be protected by fiat as well. Anything else is a ridiculous double standard that will stifle progress.
- layer8 4y ago
  As long as AIs are incapable of recognizing when they are plagiarizing, as humans are generally capable of, the double standard seems entirely warranted.
  - Filligree 4y ago
    > as humans are generally capable of Citation needed. I've never plagiarised on purpose, sure, but I've caught myself at least several dozen times well after the act.
    - layer8 4y ago
      Well, that you caught yourself is already something that makes a difference. It would already change the equation if Copilot would send an email saying “Hey, that snippet xyz I suggested yesterday is actually plagiarized from repo abc. I’m truly sorry about that, I’ll do my best to be more careful in the future.” As far as “citation needed”, humans are being convicted for plagiarism, so it is generally assumed that they are able to tell and hence can be held responsible for it. Responsibility or liability is really the crux here. As long as AIs can’t be made liable for their actions (output) like humans or legal entities can, instead the AI operators must be held accountable, and it’s arguably their responsibility to take all practical measures to prevent their AIs from plagiarizing, or from otherwise violating license terms.

kadoban 4y ago

The legal world tends to be less interested in these kind of logical gotchas than engineering types would like. I don't see a judge caring about that brain framing at all. Not to mention, if your brain starts outputting Microsoft copyright code, they're going to sue the shit out of you and win, so I'm not sure how that would help even so.

yoyohello13 4y ago

So if I read the windows explorer source code, then later produced a line for line copy (without referring back to the source). Microsoft couldn't sue me?

bombolo 4y ago

> The brain is also just a "complex math program" Source?

rowanG077 4y ago
The physics that gives rise to the brain is pretty much known. We can model all the protons, electrons and photons incredibly accurately.
- iampuero 4y ago
  I feel like this is a massive oversimplification... In this answer, you're completely ignoring the massive fact that we cannot create a human brain. Having mathematical models about particles does not mean we have "solved" the brain. Unless you're also believe that these LLMs are actually behaving just like human brains, in that have consciousness, they have logic, they dream, they have nightmares, they produce emotions such as fear, love, anger, that they grow and change over time, that they controls body, your lungs, heart, etc... You see my point, right? Surely you see that the statement 'The brain is also just a "complex math program"' is at best extremely over-simplistic.
- bqmjjx0kac 4y ago
  > The physics that gives rise to the brain is pretty much known There is a gaping chasm between observing known physics, and saying it is the cause of consciousness. You should read this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_mind https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_mind [ Edit: better link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_problem_of_consciousness https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_problem_of_consciousness ]
- goatlover 4y ago
  There's certainly no model of a brain at the level of protons, electrons and photons. That's way beyond our level of mathematical understanding or computational ability. Biology isn't understood at the level of physics.

fsflover 4y ago

It might be. If your brain generated verbatim someone's code without following its license, you would also break copyright, wouldn't you?

kyruzic 4y ago

No it's actually not.

willhslade 4y ago

So how and why do we solve the halting problem?

willhslade 4y ago

Also, to pile on, if I use my brain to read GPL source code and then type it in again on my own, I'm pretty sure I'm guilty of violating copyright.