3 ms·
Ah yes, the old: you can’t prove my deity doesn’t exist argument. Puzzling that I don’t share your faith or point of view? Why? The point is to not ascribe pr
by agentultra 4y ago
Ah yes, the old: you can’t prove my deity doesn’t exist argument.
Puzzling that I don’t share your faith or point of view? Why?
The point is to not ascribe properties attributed to a thing we know doesn’t have them. We can teach people how ChatGPT works without getting into pseudo-philosophical babble about what consciousness is and whether humans can be accurately simulated by an LLM with enough parameters.
- myrmidon 4y agoIMO the big blindside of your argument is that you MUST either accept that some magic happens in human brains (=> which is HARD to reconciliate with a science-inspired world-view), OR that achieving human-level cognitive performance is a pure hardware/software optimization problem. The thing is that GPT4 already approaches human level cognitive performance in some tasks, which means you need a strong argument for WHY full human-level performance would be out of reach of gradual improvements to the current approach. On the other hand, a very strong argument could be made that the very first artificial neural networks had the absolutely right ideas and all the improvements over the last ~40 years were just the necessary scaling/tuning for actually approaching human performance levels... This is also where I have to recommend V Braitenbergs "Vehicles: Experiments in synthetic psychology" (from 1984!) which aged remarkably well and shaped my personal outlook on the human mind more than anything else.
- krickkrack 4y agoWhat faith? I never made the claim you're attributing to me. Smug idiots like you are wrong all the time.