4 ms·

> Bayesian inference is a method of statistical inference in which Bayes' theorem is used to update the probability for a hypothesis as more evidence or informa

> Bayesian inference is a method of statistical inference in which Bayes' theorem is used to update the probability for a hypothesis as more evidence or information becomes available. That is very clearly reasoning

hammyhavoc 4y ago
No, it's probability entered into an algorithm as a variable. This is not reasoning, this is probability, and there is no reasoning involved. Go and program HomeAssistant (FOSS) with an automation using Bayes' theorem. Then proceed to laugh about all the fail states you encounter, thus realizing it is not reasoning, but probability. https://community.home-assistant.io/t/how-bayes-sensors-work-from-a-statistics-professor-with-working-google-sheets/143177 https://community.home-assistant.io/t/how-bayes-sensors-work... It's quite literally known as Bayesian probability.
- circuit10 4y ago
  I will admit that I don't know much about Bayesian statistics, but how does something producing probability as an output mean it's not reasoning? I'm pretty sure humans do that consciously and subconsciously all the time and we call that reasoning
  - hammyhavoc 4y ago
    Because it's just an arbitrary number. It has no concept of what the numbers mean or what it means when it gets a number that it doesn't have in its existing data set (the "training", more accurately described as references), whereas a human being can make an educated guess, or adapt to the unexpected outcome and thus provide a new novel solution. It isn't thinking about the numbers, it's executing maths, as programmed. Is a calculator reasoning? It doesn't understand what the numbers mean. It's an input-output machine. Is a sheet of paper with numbers on it the process of reasoning itself? No, of course not. Human beings apply meaning to the output, or feed that output into other things to drive processes that they've already created. If you kick the Boston Dynamics BigDog, it will compensate for the changes in x sensors and remain upright, or get back up, ergo it can traverse a dynamic (changing) environment, such as a battlefield, or an urban area with cars, people etc. It's not reasoning. It's conditional logic based on different vars. The BigDog bot doesn't understand what it is, where it's going, it doesn't think, it's applying maths to sensor inputs and motors on a recursive loop. If it encounters a problem it hasn't been programmed for, it cannot reason a new solution. By your logic, video game characters must use reasoning, when no, they don't. It's maths. Is it all fascinating? Yes, absolutely. Are there uses for it? Yes, absolutely. Is it reasoning? No.
    - circuit10 4y ago
      If a human brain doesn’t use maths, what does it use? It’s Magic? > "training", more accurately described as references Uh, no, that's not at all how the training process works. The training process very roughly mirrors evolution/natural selection except more more direct and faster. This is a good introduction to the concept of how a computer could learn: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qv6UVOQ0F44 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qv6UVOQ0F44 This is a more technical look at how exactly it works in more modern AIs: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aircAruvnKk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aircAruvnKk (it's a series) > If it encounters a problem it hasn't been programmed for, it cannot reason a new solution. But an LLM can? It's not as good at it as a human but it can Relevant: https://twitter.com/nearcyan/status/1632661647226462211 https://twitter.com/nearcyan/status/1632661647226462211 (if you don’t want to click it it says “referring to AI models as "just math" or "matrix multiplication" is as uselessly reductive as referring to tigers as "just biology" or "biochemical reactions"”) > By your logic, video game characters must use reasoning, when no, they don't. It's maths. “By your logic, if tigers are dangerous, then bananas must be too, when no, they aren’t. It’s biology.”
      - hammyhavoc 4y ago
        This has to be the most misinformed counterargument of all time. The brain certainly doesn't use maths as it is not a binary system. Information is approximated and estimated. Do some reading on chemically mediated graded responses and how neurotransmitters actually function within a synapse. Scientific research also suggests there are quantum processes involved that we don't yet grasp, ergo a hypothetical AGI likely won't emerge without using quantum physics.
        anonzzzies 4y ago
        > Scientific research also suggests there are quantum processes involved that we don't yet grasp, ergo a hypothetical AGI likely won't emerge without using quantum physics. Citation? As far as I know it has been postulated, usually by religious people, that there must be another factor at play, like quantum physics, a soul etc because we don’t understand too much about many things. We also don’t understand the emergent behaviours about LLMs or what is consciousness etc. You can religiously think or hope we are superior to the phone in your pocket, but the proof is thin and became a lot thinner a few years ago with LLMs. The mere fact we don’t know how things work or that we are not cloning our own brains or processes is not a proof at all that we won’t stumble accidentally or purposely onto something that is a reasonable simile. I believe LLMs and the emergent behaviours they show gives us some idea that we are quite stupid and arrogant; we believe we are all that, yet I replaced a team of 15 devs with gpt and we overperform more than ever. I agree with you we don’t understand our brains, but that doesn’t mean there is no alternative or simile that works just as well rooted in silicon and LLMs are the beginning of that.

hammyhavoc 4y ago

No, it's probability entered into an algorithm as a variable. This is not reasoning, this is probability, and there is no reasoning involved. Go and program HomeAssistant (FOSS) with an automation using Bayes' theorem. Then proceed to laugh about all the fail states you encounter, thus realizing it is not reasoning, but probability. https://community.home-assistant.io/t/how-bayes-sensors-work-from-a-statistics-professor-with-working-google-sheets/143177 https://community.home-assistant.io/t/how-bayes-sensors-work... It's quite literally known as Bayesian probability.

circuit10 4y ago
I will admit that I don't know much about Bayesian statistics, but how does something producing probability as an output mean it's not reasoning? I'm pretty sure humans do that consciously and subconsciously all the time and we call that reasoning
- hammyhavoc 4y ago
  Because it's just an arbitrary number. It has no concept of what the numbers mean or what it means when it gets a number that it doesn't have in its existing data set (the "training", more accurately described as references), whereas a human being can make an educated guess, or adapt to the unexpected outcome and thus provide a new novel solution. It isn't thinking about the numbers, it's executing maths, as programmed. Is a calculator reasoning? It doesn't understand what the numbers mean. It's an input-output machine. Is a sheet of paper with numbers on it the process of reasoning itself? No, of course not. Human beings apply meaning to the output, or feed that output into other things to drive processes that they've already created. If you kick the Boston Dynamics BigDog, it will compensate for the changes in x sensors and remain upright, or get back up, ergo it can traverse a dynamic (changing) environment, such as a battlefield, or an urban area with cars, people etc. It's not reasoning. It's conditional logic based on different vars. The BigDog bot doesn't understand what it is, where it's going, it doesn't think, it's applying maths to sensor inputs and motors on a recursive loop. If it encounters a problem it hasn't been programmed for, it cannot reason a new solution. By your logic, video game characters must use reasoning, when no, they don't. It's maths. Is it all fascinating? Yes, absolutely. Are there uses for it? Yes, absolutely. Is it reasoning? No.
  - circuit10 4y ago
    If a human brain doesn’t use maths, what does it use? It’s Magic? > "training", more accurately described as references Uh, no, that's not at all how the training process works. The training process very roughly mirrors evolution/natural selection except more more direct and faster. This is a good introduction to the concept of how a computer could learn: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qv6UVOQ0F44 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qv6UVOQ0F44 This is a more technical look at how exactly it works in more modern AIs: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aircAruvnKk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aircAruvnKk (it's a series) > If it encounters a problem it hasn't been programmed for, it cannot reason a new solution. But an LLM can? It's not as good at it as a human but it can Relevant: https://twitter.com/nearcyan/status/1632661647226462211 https://twitter.com/nearcyan/status/1632661647226462211 (if you don’t want to click it it says “referring to AI models as "just math" or "matrix multiplication" is as uselessly reductive as referring to tigers as "just biology" or "biochemical reactions"”) > By your logic, video game characters must use reasoning, when no, they don't. It's maths. “By your logic, if tigers are dangerous, then bananas must be too, when no, they aren’t. It’s biology.”
    - hammyhavoc 4y ago
      This has to be the most misinformed counterargument of all time. The brain certainly doesn't use maths as it is not a binary system. Information is approximated and estimated. Do some reading on chemically mediated graded responses and how neurotransmitters actually function within a synapse. Scientific research also suggests there are quantum processes involved that we don't yet grasp, ergo a hypothetical AGI likely won't emerge without using quantum physics.
      - anonzzzies 4y ago
        > Scientific research also suggests there are quantum processes involved that we don't yet grasp, ergo a hypothetical AGI likely won't emerge without using quantum physics. Citation? As far as I know it has been postulated, usually by religious people, that there must be another factor at play, like quantum physics, a soul etc because we don’t understand too much about many things. We also don’t understand the emergent behaviours about LLMs or what is consciousness etc. You can religiously think or hope we are superior to the phone in your pocket, but the proof is thin and became a lot thinner a few years ago with LLMs. The mere fact we don’t know how things work or that we are not cloning our own brains or processes is not a proof at all that we won’t stumble accidentally or purposely onto something that is a reasonable simile. I believe LLMs and the emergent behaviours they show gives us some idea that we are quite stupid and arrogant; we believe we are all that, yet I replaced a team of 15 devs with gpt and we overperform more than ever. I agree with you we don’t understand our brains, but that doesn’t mean there is no alternative or simile that works just as well rooted in silicon and LLMs are the beginning of that.