2 ms·

> Disagree with the theory that we are overgrown text prediction all you want, but you can't deny that it is an "understanding" in the sense that knowing it let

> Disagree with the theory that we are overgrown text prediction all you want, but you can't deny that it is an "understanding" in the sense that knowing it lets you build and test it. Yeah, and it helps us understand how "overgrown text prediction" works, but not how humans work. In the same way that building a robotic arm won't help you understand how muscles work. > If you can't build anything out of an "understanding", even a wrong thing, then you don't truly have an understanding. Not entirely true. We can't build a star, but we do have a pretty good theory of how stars work. But I do agree that we don't understand the human brain.

IIAOPSW 4y ago
Building a robot arm does help understand how muscles work. By having a robot arm to play with, you can pinpoint exactly the abilities which aren't accounted for by your current understanding. Boston Dynamics built that robot dog thing. It took decades to make robotic kinematics that good. The dog demonstrates an understanding of a system of muscles that solves the same problems as its biological counterpart. You say that overgrown text prediction isn't how humans work. And full disclosure you're probably right. But me put on my contrarian hat and say that actually you're wrong and that really is all there is to the brain. At what point does my theory break? What types of things can't be done with just overgrown text prediction, and what features are relevant to a system that could do those things? Don't just appeal to intuition and tell me humans obviously don't work that way. Find the actual flaw where the theory breaks down. That is the value of this experiment. If you can find the words / experiments to demonstrate why overgrown text prediction isn't an accurate understanding of human thought, in the process you will have in fact distilled a better understanding of human thought. Information on how the brain doesn't work is also information about how the brain works.
- leereeves 4y ago
  > Building a robot arm does help understand how muscles work. I think we're talking about different levels. A robotic arm helps understand the mechanics of an arm, but not cell metabolism, myosin motors, etc. Any understanding of muscles you might get from a robotic arm is superficial. > You say that overgrown text prediction isn't how humans work. To be fair, I did say that, but what I meant was that humans don't work the way ChatGPT does. Maybe we do use "overgrown text prediction" but we don't use word vectors, tensor calculus, and transformers. We know that humans have some pure text prediction ability. People who've seen Mary Poppins can complete supercalifragili... even though it has no meaning. But how? We don't know, even after building LMs. > What types of things can't be done with just overgrown text prediction That's a different claim and not one I'm making. What types of things do humans not do with text prediction? Anything that doesn't involve the language processing parts of the brain, at least.
  - IIAOPSW 4y ago
    >What types of things do humans not do with text prediction? Anything that doesn't involve the language processing parts of the brain, at least. Let's separate out the robotics problem from the consciousness problem. Sure the brain solves both, but the things that a computer can't do yet because it has no body aren't fundamental limitations. We can just hook the computer up to a robot body eventually. So to rephrase, what types of things can the brain of a blind paralyzed person do that text prediction cannot? >To be fair, I did say that, but what I meant was that humans don't work the way ChatGPT does. Maybe we do use "overgrown text prediction" but we don't use word vectors, tensor calculus, and transformers. Well, at least not consciously. Really, the question about the question comes down to which one you care about: figuring out the phenomena of consciousness in general (studying humans as our only accessible reference implementation), or figuring out how human consciousness works in particular. Its easy to conflate the two.

IIAOPSW 4y ago

Building a robot arm does help understand how muscles work. By having a robot arm to play with, you can pinpoint exactly the abilities which aren't accounted for by your current understanding. Boston Dynamics built that robot dog thing. It took decades to make robotic kinematics that good. The dog demonstrates an understanding of a system of muscles that solves the same problems as its biological counterpart. You say that overgrown text prediction isn't how humans work. And full disclosure you're probably right. But me put on my contrarian hat and say that actually you're wrong and that really is all there is to the brain. At what point does my theory break? What types of things can't be done with just overgrown text prediction, and what features are relevant to a system that could do those things? Don't just appeal to intuition and tell me humans obviously don't work that way. Find the actual flaw where the theory breaks down. That is the value of this experiment. If you can find the words / experiments to demonstrate why overgrown text prediction isn't an accurate understanding of human thought, in the process you will have in fact distilled a better understanding of human thought. Information on how the brain doesn't work is also information about how the brain works.

leereeves 4y ago
> Building a robot arm does help understand how muscles work. I think we're talking about different levels. A robotic arm helps understand the mechanics of an arm, but not cell metabolism, myosin motors, etc. Any understanding of muscles you might get from a robotic arm is superficial. > You say that overgrown text prediction isn't how humans work. To be fair, I did say that, but what I meant was that humans don't work the way ChatGPT does. Maybe we do use "overgrown text prediction" but we don't use word vectors, tensor calculus, and transformers. We know that humans have some pure text prediction ability. People who've seen Mary Poppins can complete supercalifragili... even though it has no meaning. But how? We don't know, even after building LMs. > What types of things can't be done with just overgrown text prediction That's a different claim and not one I'm making. What types of things do humans not do with text prediction? Anything that doesn't involve the language processing parts of the brain, at least.
- IIAOPSW 4y ago
  >What types of things do humans not do with text prediction? Anything that doesn't involve the language processing parts of the brain, at least. Let's separate out the robotics problem from the consciousness problem. Sure the brain solves both, but the things that a computer can't do yet because it has no body aren't fundamental limitations. We can just hook the computer up to a robot body eventually. So to rephrase, what types of things can the brain of a blind paralyzed person do that text prediction cannot? >To be fair, I did say that, but what I meant was that humans don't work the way ChatGPT does. Maybe we do use "overgrown text prediction" but we don't use word vectors, tensor calculus, and transformers. Well, at least not consciously. Really, the question about the question comes down to which one you care about: figuring out the phenomena of consciousness in general (studying humans as our only accessible reference implementation), or figuring out how human consciousness works in particular. Its easy to conflate the two.