3 ms·
It’s really bizarre. It’s like the sibling comment saying why would humans be different than a large LLM. Where is the evidence humans are simply a large LLM? I
by dinkumthinkum 4y ago
It’s really bizarre. It’s like the sibling comment saying why would humans be different than a large LLM. Where is the evidence humans are simply a large LLM? If that is the case, what is the physics that explains massive difference in power and heat in “computing” between humans at LLMs? Where is the concrete evidence that human intelligence can be simulated by a Turing Machine?
- mr_toad 4y ago> Where is the concrete evidence that human intelligence can be simulated by a Turing Machine? Short of building such a machine I can’t see how you’d produce evidence of that, let alone “concrete” evidence. Regardless, we don’t know of any measurable physical process that the brain could be using that is not computable. If we found one (in the brain or elsewhere), we’d use it to construct devices that exceeded the capacity of Turing machines, and then use those to simulate human brains.
- dinkumthinkum 4y agoSo. Your argument is it’s too hard to create one so the two things are equivalent? I mean, maybe you could give this argument to ChatGPT to find out the numerous flaws in this reasoning, that would be interesting.
- sirsinsalot 4y agoNobody is saying humans are simply a big LLM, just that despite the means being different (brain vs digital weights) there are enough parallels to show that human cognition is as simple as common sense implies. It's all just a dense network of weights and biases of different sorts.
- dinkumthinkum 4y agoIf you read this thread, you will find nauseatingly lots of such case where people are claiming exactly that. Furthermore, what “common sense” imply? Does common sense claim that computation can be done outside of physics?