3 ms·

The differences between a a human being and a computer are too numerous to list. I don’t even know why you need to ask the question. Let me ask another questio

by enneff 3y ago

The differences between a a human being and a computer are too numerous to list. I don’t even know why you need to ask the question. Let me ask another question to point out the absurdity of yours: Human beings have more in common with a bacterium than a software program. Can you tell me specifically how humans are not bacteria?

permo-w 3y ago
analogies are not descriptions of the things themselves, otherwise they would not be analogies, would they? now remember that this is an analogy. re-read my comments in this light and perhaps we can continue this conversation in a more grounded and reasonable manner however, I'll be frank: have you studied neural networks? if you haven't, it's very difficult to take you seriously on this
- enneff 3y ago
  Now you’re just being condescending. I did read your comments and I know what an analogy is. Consider that there is a different perspective to yours that can validly view your analogy as absurd. Yes I have studied neural nets and have a good understanding of their function. I am still not sure how, despite their development being inspired by animal brains, you can liken an LLM to an actual person. There are so many vast differences. Do you really want me to explain specially what they are? Surely, since both you and I are so familiar with the subject matter, that is unnecessary. If we were taking about an AGI then this would be an entirely different conversation.
  - permo-w 3y ago
    your argument was predicated upon my comment being factually inaccurate, not analogously poor. I merely listed some leading questions analogising the ability of human brains to absorb, contextualise and emit copyrighted information to an LLM's ability to do all of those same things. you created a weaker position to attack which was that LLMs are the same as humans if you want to discuss whether it is a poor analogy or not, I'm all for that, but the passage you've chosen to go down is to act as if it were not an analogy at all, which—to borrow a phrase—is disingenuous to the extreme

by enneff 3y ago

permo-w 3y ago

analogies are not descriptions of the things themselves, otherwise they would not be analogies, would they? now remember that this is an analogy. re-read my comments in this light and perhaps we can continue this conversation in a more grounded and reasonable manner however, I'll be frank: have you studied neural networks? if you haven't, it's very difficult to take you seriously on this

enneff 3y ago
Now you’re just being condescending. I did read your comments and I know what an analogy is. Consider that there is a different perspective to yours that can validly view your analogy as absurd. Yes I have studied neural nets and have a good understanding of their function. I am still not sure how, despite their development being inspired by animal brains, you can liken an LLM to an actual person. There are so many vast differences. Do you really want me to explain specially what they are? Surely, since both you and I are so familiar with the subject matter, that is unnecessary. If we were taking about an AGI then this would be an entirely different conversation.
- permo-w 3y ago
  your argument was predicated upon my comment being factually inaccurate, not analogously poor. I merely listed some leading questions analogising the ability of human brains to absorb, contextualise and emit copyrighted information to an LLM's ability to do all of those same things. you created a weaker position to attack which was that LLMs are the same as humans if you want to discuss whether it is a poor analogy or not, I'm all for that, but the passage you've chosen to go down is to act as if it were not an analogy at all, which—to borrow a phrase—is disingenuous to the extreme