4 ms·

I think the idea is mental association. In essence, the story's suggesting that people 'hallucinate' in just the same way as AI, taking an experience where ther

I think the idea is mental association. In essence, the story's suggesting that people 'hallucinate' in just the same way as AI, taking an experience where there's an arbitrary connection to 'warm' or 'cold' and unjustifiably attributing that, using it in an arbitrary place because it's present in their 'weights'. I think that's a good story, because I think such unjustified 'weights' DO have a profound effect. That it's BS is entirely the point. It's a fable about hallucination. It's part of intelligence.

mdp2021 3y ago
> people "hallucinate" Yes, but let us be clear about the critical point: humans do have a faculty - whether they use it or not - to check their thought for foundations, for validity. And this faculty is the condition for a legitimacy to make statements. People may conjure unfounded ideas, immature constructs (this is studied since millennia): but well developed intellects then process those ideas, test them, refine them. Given that it is relatively easy to be fooled, or dramatically easy (especially since mistakes can have a unbelievably staggering cost), and we are supposed to know that - after psychology, criminology etc., or just simply after the facts that we are more experienced than infants -, the problem of discrimination and reflection remain central and critical. And (just in case): there is absolutely no need to emulate fools: the goal is the opposite.