6 ms·

> when it's relatively clear that it's all just fancy statistics. So just like human brain then.

jfk13 4y ago
> So just like human brain then. Do you have evidence to substantiate that claim, or are we supposed to just take it on faith?
- Robotbeat 4y ago
  Quantum mechanics is “just” fancy statistics. Unless we believe in some non-physical/supernatural phenomenon going on in the human brain, this sort of reductive argument works as well for the human brain as it does for LLMs (in other words, not very well. Sufficiently complicated statistics is what underlines everything, as far as we can tell.)
chomp 4y ago
I actually agree that I don't think there's anything particularly special about our meat and chemical GPUs, but analog's fidelity has historically been difficult to replicate precisely in digital space. Maybe since we don't care for emotion in our intelligence, we don't need the analog. But I think our brains are a little more (but not that much more) complex than fancy statistics. After all, the math models the real world, not the other way around.
- ChatGTP 4y ago
  I wrote a massive rant for a response but then I deleted it. I feel sorry for people think about themselves this way, why just compare yourself to a calculator? If it was possible to build an artificial brain that was self-ware, it would probably want to be a lot more like us than you think. To feel and connect, and experience love and what that’s like is a very special part of existence.
  - jprete 4y ago
    There seem to be a lot of people in this thread who consider themselves to be calculators. I too have to restrain myself from writing massive rants.
    - CatWChainsaw 4y ago
      People espousing this opinion seem to have grown quite a lot since ChatGPT first became public. Cynical as I am, I do suspect some astroturfing trying to prepare people for being "obsolete".
      - jprete 4y ago
        I also suspect astroturfing, particularly here, and I also notice it on Substack (I don't visit a whole lot of other sites anymore). On Substack I see two clusters, one group _very into_ AI, the other advocating a lot of caution. I don't think it's preparing people to be obsolete; I think it's a combination of AI startup founders hyping up their tech, and people who identify with big tech/"the side that wants AI".
        CatWChainsaw 4y ago
        Hype no doubt plays a part, which is a perfect cover for any truly malicious astroturfing. But when I say "prepare to be obsolete", I mean prepare to be obsoleteD.
        ChatGTP 4y ago
        What’s the difference ?
        CatWChainsaw 4y ago
        Right now, billionaires who profess the view that AI could end humanity are working their hardest to progress the field as fast as possible, scoffing at "ethics", "safety", and "responsibility". So if they do get their god-machine, they're not going to look around at 8 billion fellow humans (biological stochastic parrots, according to some) who are suddenly "obsolete", but using up resources, and think "fully automated space luxury communism".

> So just like human brain then. Do you have evidence to substantiate that claim, or are we supposed to just take it on faith?

Robotbeat 4y ago
Quantum mechanics is “just” fancy statistics. Unless we believe in some non-physical/supernatural phenomenon going on in the human brain, this sort of reductive argument works as well for the human brain as it does for LLMs (in other words, not very well. Sufficiently complicated statistics is what underlines everything, as far as we can tell.)

chomp 4y ago

I actually agree that I don't think there's anything particularly special about our meat and chemical GPUs, but analog's fidelity has historically been difficult to replicate precisely in digital space. Maybe since we don't care for emotion in our intelligence, we don't need the analog. But I think our brains are a little more (but not that much more) complex than fancy statistics. After all, the math models the real world, not the other way around.

ChatGTP 4y ago
I wrote a massive rant for a response but then I deleted it. I feel sorry for people think about themselves this way, why just compare yourself to a calculator? If it was possible to build an artificial brain that was self-ware, it would probably want to be a lot more like us than you think. To feel and connect, and experience love and what that’s like is a very special part of existence.
- jprete 4y ago
  There seem to be a lot of people in this thread who consider themselves to be calculators. I too have to restrain myself from writing massive rants.
  - CatWChainsaw 4y ago
    People espousing this opinion seem to have grown quite a lot since ChatGPT first became public. Cynical as I am, I do suspect some astroturfing trying to prepare people for being "obsolete".
    - jprete 4y ago
      I also suspect astroturfing, particularly here, and I also notice it on Substack (I don't visit a whole lot of other sites anymore). On Substack I see two clusters, one group _very into_ AI, the other advocating a lot of caution. I don't think it's preparing people to be obsolete; I think it's a combination of AI startup founders hyping up their tech, and people who identify with big tech/"the side that wants AI".
      - CatWChainsaw 4y ago
        Hype no doubt plays a part, which is a perfect cover for any truly malicious astroturfing. But when I say "prepare to be obsolete", I mean prepare to be obsoleteD.
        ChatGTP 4y ago
        What’s the difference ?
        CatWChainsaw 4y ago
        Right now, billionaires who profess the view that AI could end humanity are working their hardest to progress the field as fast as possible, scoffing at "ethics", "safety", and "responsibility". So if they do get their god-machine, they're not going to look around at 8 billion fellow humans (biological stochastic parrots, according to some) who are suddenly "obsolete", but using up resources, and think "fully automated space luxury communism".