3 ms·

Try getting a human to come up with a novel idea and you'll find their idea is just a remix of existing ones, partial understanding and a masked view of the wor

Try getting a human to come up with a novel idea and you'll find their idea is just a remix of existing ones, partial understanding and a masked view of the world from their unique perspective (or they incorporated a random stimulus). This constant reach to see human cognition as somehow unique (without evidence) is tiring and frankly an ego-extension / "made in God's image" type thought hole.

nwienert 4y ago
Do you think this net can tell us something about math or physics that we don’t know? If so, how? The person making the claim that this is as or more intelligent than humans should at a minimum show it do something as impressive as humans. I’ll wait for a great piece of art or science until I for no reason diminish humans, that’s all. It’s not tiring to me to see the beauty of human intelligence. People seem to be able to draw outside the lines. It’s cool, it’s beautiful. I shouldn’t have to point to any specific amazing achievements because there are too many. I haven’t seen one from an LLM yet. I’ll know it when I see it! Not hating, just clarifying.
- sirsinsalot 4y ago
  I didn't say an LLM is as intelligent as humans. I'm saying that human intelligence isn't some mystic process above replication or emulation ... and that if an LLM-type computation can do what it does now I see not reason it can't match or surpass human intelligence in the future. It may produce that intelligence in a different way to our organic squishglobes but I don't see that it matters.
- AlecSchueler 4y ago
  The vast majority of humans I've met have never produced great works of art or science. We're holding the models to higher standards than ourselves.
southernplaces7 4y ago
On this site lately there seems to be a truly deep sense of unmitigated woo over all things AI and this comment nicely demonstrates it. We know so far that human cognition and sense of self is still largely a mystery and no evidence exists to show that it's just mechanical remixing of absorbed things. Contextually, many humans can indeed create novel suggestions, arguments and ideas, and they can self direct towards these in ways that no AI can so far. This does indeed make our cognition visibly unique without even having to mention anything religious ChatGPT on the other hand is literally just a well-engineered design for creating coherent phrases from a huge training set of human information. As even its very creators admit, it doesn't consciously think, consider for real or perform literal AGI in any way that's sentient. For you and others here to call this equal to human cognition is absurd and not based on measurable evidence. It seems more guided by emotional awe at something presented in a new way than guided by sober reasoning. And you talk about human-centric ego arguments being tiring?
- sirsinsalot 4y ago
  > We know so far that human cognition and sense of self is still largely a mystery and no evidence exists to show that it's just mechanical remixing of absorbed things I'm not saying that ChatGPT is comparable in either capability or design to a human's cognition. What I am saying is that a human brain is just input,process and output. There's no reason a model of sufficient size can't emulate human thought in such a way that there's not much difference in capability (even if the mechanics differ). I also think you're overstating the uniqueness of "novel" suggestions from humans and that "novel" ideas are some kind of high-water mark of intelligence rather than a fuzzy mechanism with induced feedback. I can think of a novel idea by randomly mixing concepts I know. What matters is if this idea is good, and that test is done via interacting with the world. This mechanism can be implemented in an LLM now.

nwienert 4y ago

Do you think this net can tell us something about math or physics that we don’t know? If so, how? The person making the claim that this is as or more intelligent than humans should at a minimum show it do something as impressive as humans. I’ll wait for a great piece of art or science until I for no reason diminish humans, that’s all. It’s not tiring to me to see the beauty of human intelligence. People seem to be able to draw outside the lines. It’s cool, it’s beautiful. I shouldn’t have to point to any specific amazing achievements because there are too many. I haven’t seen one from an LLM yet. I’ll know it when I see it! Not hating, just clarifying.

sirsinsalot 4y ago
I didn't say an LLM is as intelligent as humans. I'm saying that human intelligence isn't some mystic process above replication or emulation ... and that if an LLM-type computation can do what it does now I see not reason it can't match or surpass human intelligence in the future. It may produce that intelligence in a different way to our organic squishglobes but I don't see that it matters.
AlecSchueler 4y ago
The vast majority of humans I've met have never produced great works of art or science. We're holding the models to higher standards than ourselves.

southernplaces7 4y ago

On this site lately there seems to be a truly deep sense of unmitigated woo over all things AI and this comment nicely demonstrates it. We know so far that human cognition and sense of self is still largely a mystery and no evidence exists to show that it's just mechanical remixing of absorbed things. Contextually, many humans can indeed create novel suggestions, arguments and ideas, and they can self direct towards these in ways that no AI can so far. This does indeed make our cognition visibly unique without even having to mention anything religious ChatGPT on the other hand is literally just a well-engineered design for creating coherent phrases from a huge training set of human information. As even its very creators admit, it doesn't consciously think, consider for real or perform literal AGI in any way that's sentient. For you and others here to call this equal to human cognition is absurd and not based on measurable evidence. It seems more guided by emotional awe at something presented in a new way than guided by sober reasoning. And you talk about human-centric ego arguments being tiring?

sirsinsalot 4y ago
> We know so far that human cognition and sense of self is still largely a mystery and no evidence exists to show that it's just mechanical remixing of absorbed things I'm not saying that ChatGPT is comparable in either capability or design to a human's cognition. What I am saying is that a human brain is just input,process and output. There's no reason a model of sufficient size can't emulate human thought in such a way that there's not much difference in capability (even if the mechanics differ). I also think you're overstating the uniqueness of "novel" suggestions from humans and that "novel" ideas are some kind of high-water mark of intelligence rather than a fuzzy mechanism with induced feedback. I can think of a novel idea by randomly mixing concepts I know. What matters is if this idea is good, and that test is done via interacting with the world. This mechanism can be implemented in an LLM now.