3 ms·
I think you’re sidestepping the point here. The point is that the combo of these systems becomes one unit. One integrated system. That’s the new system to me
by aik 4y ago
I think you’re sidestepping the point here. The point is that the combo of these systems becomes one unit. One integrated system. That’s the new system to measure. Similarly, your prefrontal cortex without a hippocampus sucks. The combo of them (and other distinct parts of the brain that handle specific functions and have specific purposes that interact with other parts in a specific way) - that is what causes our specific type of intelligence to emerge. The brain as a whole is much more interesting and practical to measure.
- dvt 4y agoYeah this is a valid criticism of the Chinese Room (called the "Systems Counterargument")[1]. I think it's a weak-ish riposte in this context though, mainly because we have no real idea how our own brains work and how their parts causaly interact (other than handwavy "these neurons are firing in this area"). [1] https://iep.utm.edu/chinese-room-argument/#SH2a https://iep.utm.edu/chinese-room-argument/#SH2a
- aik 4y agoI think the most likely case is that the properties of a system that leads to emergent behavior (part of complexity science) are very much present in the brain where the various components with a proper balance leads to the intelligence we have. An interesting intelligence emerges from a colony of ants compared to one. An interesting intelligence emerges from the relations of the various parts of the brain. An interesting intelligence emerges from the combo of techniques that have led to GPT and other surprising AIs. Same with a human, to two humans collaborating, to tribes to companies to cities etc. And likely same by combining/integrating GPT-4 type of LLMs with other tools and with other specific purpose LLMs - a greater unit of significance will emerge. (The non-predictability of this with current science is what is kind of scary to me.)