8 ms·
Humans have a long history of comparing ourselves, and the universe, to our latest technological advancement. We used to be glorified clocks (as was the univers
by Mattasher 3y ago
Humans have a long history of comparing ourselves, and the universe, to our latest technological advancement. We used to be glorified clocks (as was the universe), then we were automatons, then computers, then NPC's, and now AI's (in particular LLM's).
Which BTW I don't think is a completely absurd comparison, see https://mattasher.substack.com/p/ais-killer-app https://mattasher.substack.com/p/ais-killer-app
- ChuckMcM 3y agoI always enjoyed the stories of 'clock work' people (robots).
- MichaelZuo 3y agoEach successive comparison is likely getting closer and closer to the truth.
- beezlebroxxxxxx 3y agoOr each successive comparison is just compounding and reiterating the same underlying assumption (and potentially the same mistake) whether it's true or not.
- finefrenchbrit 3y ago[dead]
- bigDinosaur 3y agoThe jump to 'information processing machines' seems far more correct than anything that came before, I'm curious how you would argue against that? Yes, there are more modern and other interesting theories (e.g. predictive coding) but they seem much closer to cognitive psychology than say, the human brain working like a clock.
- jtr1 3y agoI think the argument is that you need to ask how you are measuring when you say it seems more correct than anything that came before. You may just be describing the experience of swimming in the dominant paradigm
- schoen 3y agoOne attempt could be "it allows us to make better predictions about the mind". This article mentions excitement about neural networks overgeneralizing verb inflections, which human language learners also do. If neural networks lead to the discovery of new examples of human cognitive or perceptual errors or illusions, or to the discovery of new effective methods for learning, teaching, or psychotherapy, that could count as evidence that they're a good model of our actual minds.
- dotforest 3y agoIf the article is talking about the neural network in McClelland and Rumelhart’s Parallel Distributed Processing, there’s actually a paper by Steven Pinker and some other linguists drilling into it and finding that it doesn’t model children’s language acquisition nearly as closely or as well as M&R think it does.
- dragonwriter 3y ago> If neural networks lead to the discovery of new examples of human cognitive or perceptual errors or illusions, How would they, except as tools for analyzing research rather than research models? They don't work like human brains, so while they might sometimes exhibit something that looks like similar behavior when viewed a certain way, other than already having observed the behavior in human beings, there’s no reason to expect something they do to reflect what human brains, and moreover there’s no reason to expect useful insights from the corresponding behavior, since there is no reason to expect that the behavior responds similarly outside of the conditions where it is observed in both systems, leaving all the insight on the brain to cone from the brain (or models that, unlike artificial neural nets, we know have structural and behavioral similarities with (some parts of) human brains that are useful.)
- beepbooptheory 3y agoVery curious to know what the telos of "truth" is here for you? A comparison is a comparison, it can get no more "true." If you want to say: the terms of the comparisons seem to verge towards identity, then you aren't really talking about the same thing anymore. Further, you would need to assert that our conceptions of ourselves have remained static throughout the whole ordeal (pretty tough to defend), and you would also need to put forward a pretty crude idea of technological determinism (extremely tough to defend). Its way more productive and way less woo-woo to understand that humans have a certain tendency towards comparison, and we tend to create things that reflect our current values and conceptions of ourselves. And that "technological progress" is not a straight line, but a labyrinthine route that traces societal conceptions and priorities. The desire for the llm to be like us is probably more realistically our desire to be like the llm!
- PaulDavisThe1st 3y agoAn apple is like an orange. Both are round fruits, containing visible seeds, and relatively sweet. If you're hungry, they are both good choices. But then again, an apple is nothing like an orange, particularly if you want to make an apple pie. The purpose of a comparison is important in helping to define its scope.
- ImHereToVote 3y agoExcept LLM's are built on neural networks. That are based on how neurons work. The first tech that actually copies aspects of us.
- TaylorAlexander 3y agosigh Neural networks are not based on how neurons work. They do not copy aspects of us. They call them neural networks because they are sort of conceptually like networks of neurons in the brain but they’re so different as to make false the statement that they are based on neurons.
- Terr_ 3y ago*brandishes crutches* "Behold! The Mechanical Leg! The first technology that actually copies aspects of our very selves! Think of what wonders of self-discovery it shall reveal!" :p P.S.: "My god, it is stronger in compression rather than shear-stresses, how eerily similar to real legs! We're on to something here!"
- finefrenchbrit 3y ago[dead]
- robwwilliams 3y agoIf you study retinal synaptic circuitry you will not sigh so heavily and you will in fact see striking homologies with hardware neural networks, including feedback between layers and discretized (action potential) outputs via the optic nerve. I recommend reading Synaptic Organization of the Brain or getting into if you are brave, the primary literature on retinal processing of visual input.
- smokel 3y agoThe book "The Synaptic Organization of the Brain" appears to be from 2003. Is it still relevant, or is there perhaps a more recent book worth checking out?
- Tallain 3y agoNot just technological advancements; we have a history of comparing ourselves to that which surrounds us, is relatively ubiquitous, and easily comprehended by others when using the metaphor. Today it's this steady march of technological advancement, but read any older work of philosophy and you will see our selves (particularly, our minods) compared to monarchs, cities, aqueducts.[1] I point this out because I think the idea of comparing ourselves to recent tech is more about using the technology as a metaphor for self, and it's worth incorporating the other ways we have done so historically for context. [1]: https://online.ucpress.edu/SLA/article/2/4/542/83344/The-Brain-as-Treasury-and-as-AqueductMetaphors-of https://online.ucpress.edu/SLA/article/2/4/542/83344/The-Bra...
- cmrdporcupine 3y agoStep A: build a machine which reflects a reduced and simplified model of how some part of a human works Step B: turn it on its head "the human brain is nothing more than... <insert machine here.>" It's a bit tautological. The worry is that there's a Step C: Humans actually start to behave as simple as said machine.
- PaulDavisThe1st 3y agoWhat machines have we built that reflect a reduced and simplified model of how some part of a human works (other than as a minor and generally invisible research projects) ?
- dekhn 3y agoany chemical or large industrial plant built in the last 30 years
- PaulDavisThe1st 3y agoI think most industrial chemists would likely disagree. But I guess YMMV.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- zmgsabst 3y agoElectronic are a simplified model of the brains used by computers: They emulate the faculty, rather than biology.
- dragonwriter 3y ago> What machines have we built that reflect a reduced and simplified model of how some part of a human works A very large number, e.g., lots of implants and prosthetic devices for one fairly large class.