3 ms·

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 hum

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.

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.