5 ms·

> the reality is that no "intelligence" is sure if what it's saying may be correct or constitute any kind of "knowledge" This is not true. An intelligence shou

by mxkopy 4y ago

> the reality is that no "intelligence" is sure if what it's saying may be correct or constitute any kind of "knowledge" This is not true. An intelligence should almost by definition be able to recognize patterns, i.e. when things are similar or are the same. This is why we know that 1+1=2, since 1+1 and 2 are just different names for the same thing. ChatGPT 'hallucinations' are a lack of this exact sort of consistency that makes it obvious that words are merely symbols and not representative of an actual thing. And how could it even know otherwise? ChatGPT is never exposed to things. I'm certain in my knowledge of 1+1=2, but even if I wasn't, I know that 1+1=2 aren't just some ASCII symbols; but we're not entirely sure ChatGPT can be either of these.

detrites 4y ago
> a words are merely symbols and not representative of an actual thing. And how could it even know otherwise? ChatGPT is never exposed to things. An interesting argument, what does it mean for the disabled? Eg, if a human had a fully functioning brain, but from birth could not sense anything except text sent to their brain, which they could only respond to with text, would this mean they're equivalent to a language model? > but we're not entirely sure ChatGPT can be either of these. Here you seem to agree with my point. We cannot be sure. Why?
- mxkopy 4y ago
  > would this mean they're equivalent to a language model? This is just a bad question. For one, we know that ChatGPT doesn't use neurological mechanisms. It has no proteins. It's not analogous. You're comparing meters to radians. I'm going to say no, a human without sensory organs is not just an LLM, not because of some complicated argument about how evolution imposes structure on the brain prior to any experiences it has, but because the premise is just bad. > Here you seem to agree with my point. We cannot be sure. Why? This is not the same type of 'sure' as in "we're not sure if there's life out there." It's 'sure' as in "we're not sure monkeys can build a bridge on their own." Side note: when did it become standard rhetoric to say "you're agreeing with me now."? I'm obviously not agreeing with you. Do you think I need reminding? Or do you need reminding? It's made me somewhat interested in having an informative argument to actively disinterested in anything other than telling you how wrong you are. Can we keep it to reddit please?
  - detrites 4y ago
    How can we confidently state we know ChatGPT doesn't use neurological mechanisms, when we don't yet completely understand our own neurological mechanisms, nor emergent mechanisms that may be at work within ChatGPT? At the same time, we can already comprehensively model some biological neurological systems in their entirety, in silicon. This will continue and the human mind will not be immune to such progress, making the question important. I see it as a question that cuts to the core of the matter - long-standing, unanswered philosophical questions: What does it mean to "perceive"? Can a machine be conscious? Are our biological processes meaningfully differentiable from equivalents when mimmicked by a machine? Are our "perceptions" special? Or not? Putting the point another way: We can't be objective about "perception" from within the constraints of perception. While we routinely "imagine" an objective reality that exists beyond our perception, that we believe our perceptions reveal, there is no way to conclusively prove that's actually happening. Possibly, ever. (As for the side note: I genuinely interpreted it that way, hence the word "seem", I didn't think about whether or not you'd missed it. I too assumed a conversation precisely unlike reddit... my default assumption here.)
    - mxkopy 4y ago
      You can't "cut to the core of deep philosophical questions" when you don't know the basics. For example, this > we can already comprehensively model some biological neurological systems in their entirety, in silicon. is just patently wrong. > How can we confidently state we know ChatGPT doesn't use neurological mechanisms, when we don't yet completely understand our own neurological mechanisms, nor emergent mechanisms that may be at work within ChatGPT? How can we confidently state that the sun isn't alive when we don't ourselves know what life is? I mean, it's got different layers like a cell. It has a source of energy, a lifecycle and it eventually dies. The sun has been around for much longer than chatGPT so I think we should answer this question first. > While we routinely "imagine" an objective reality that exists beyond our perception I'll just say this - if you really want to believe you're a brain floating in space, why don't you live life like it's GTA? Because obviously none of it is real, right? Look up 'solipsism', this isn't a new or for that matter important philosophical position. Unless you want to write about how much fun whatever video game you're playing is in lieu of reality.

by mxkopy 4y ago

detrites 4y ago

> a words are merely symbols and not representative of an actual thing. And how could it even know otherwise? ChatGPT is never exposed to things. An interesting argument, what does it mean for the disabled? Eg, if a human had a fully functioning brain, but from birth could not sense anything except text sent to their brain, which they could only respond to with text, would this mean they're equivalent to a language model? > but we're not entirely sure ChatGPT can be either of these. Here you seem to agree with my point. We cannot be sure. Why?

mxkopy 4y ago
> would this mean they're equivalent to a language model? This is just a bad question. For one, we know that ChatGPT doesn't use neurological mechanisms. It has no proteins. It's not analogous. You're comparing meters to radians. I'm going to say no, a human without sensory organs is not just an LLM, not because of some complicated argument about how evolution imposes structure on the brain prior to any experiences it has, but because the premise is just bad. > Here you seem to agree with my point. We cannot be sure. Why? This is not the same type of 'sure' as in "we're not sure if there's life out there." It's 'sure' as in "we're not sure monkeys can build a bridge on their own." Side note: when did it become standard rhetoric to say "you're agreeing with me now."? I'm obviously not agreeing with you. Do you think I need reminding? Or do you need reminding? It's made me somewhat interested in having an informative argument to actively disinterested in anything other than telling you how wrong you are. Can we keep it to reddit please?
- detrites 4y ago
  How can we confidently state we know ChatGPT doesn't use neurological mechanisms, when we don't yet completely understand our own neurological mechanisms, nor emergent mechanisms that may be at work within ChatGPT? At the same time, we can already comprehensively model some biological neurological systems in their entirety, in silicon. This will continue and the human mind will not be immune to such progress, making the question important. I see it as a question that cuts to the core of the matter - long-standing, unanswered philosophical questions: What does it mean to "perceive"? Can a machine be conscious? Are our biological processes meaningfully differentiable from equivalents when mimmicked by a machine? Are our "perceptions" special? Or not? Putting the point another way: We can't be objective about "perception" from within the constraints of perception. While we routinely "imagine" an objective reality that exists beyond our perception, that we believe our perceptions reveal, there is no way to conclusively prove that's actually happening. Possibly, ever. (As for the side note: I genuinely interpreted it that way, hence the word "seem", I didn't think about whether or not you'd missed it. I too assumed a conversation precisely unlike reddit... my default assumption here.)
  - mxkopy 4y ago
    You can't "cut to the core of deep philosophical questions" when you don't know the basics. For example, this > we can already comprehensively model some biological neurological systems in their entirety, in silicon. is just patently wrong. > How can we confidently state we know ChatGPT doesn't use neurological mechanisms, when we don't yet completely understand our own neurological mechanisms, nor emergent mechanisms that may be at work within ChatGPT? How can we confidently state that the sun isn't alive when we don't ourselves know what life is? I mean, it's got different layers like a cell. It has a source of energy, a lifecycle and it eventually dies. The sun has been around for much longer than chatGPT so I think we should answer this question first. > While we routinely "imagine" an objective reality that exists beyond our perception I'll just say this - if you really want to believe you're a brain floating in space, why don't you live life like it's GTA? Because obviously none of it is real, right? Look up 'solipsism', this isn't a new or for that matter important philosophical position. Unless you want to write about how much fun whatever video game you're playing is in lieu of reality.