3 ms·

>None of these neurons "want" to do anything. They respond to specific input. Yes well, your neurons don't "want" to do anything either. >Maybe humans are the

>None of these neurons "want" to do anything. They respond to specific input. Yes well, your neurons don't "want" to do anything either. >Maybe humans are the same, but in the case of artificial neural networks we at least know it's a simple mathematical function So what, magic ? a soul ? If the brain is computing then the substrate is entirely irrelevant. Silicon, biology, pulleys and gears. all can be arranged to make the same or similar computations. If you genuinely believe the latter, it's fine. The point is that "simple" mathematical function is kind of irrelevant. Either the brain computes and any substrate is fine or it doesn't. >Also, an artificial neuron is nothing like a biological neuron. They're not the same but "nothing like" is pushing it a lot. They're inspired by biological neurons and the only reason modern NNs aren't closer to their biological counterparts is because they genuinely suffer for it, not because we can't. >Biological neurons fire because of their internal state, state which is modified by biological signaling chemicals Brains aren't breaking break causality. The fire because of input.

airgapstopgap 3y ago
Comments like this are incredibly grating. You condescend to the interlocutor for making a mistake which only exists in your own mistaken world model. Your confidence that neurons and ANN weights and «pulleys and gears» are all equivalent because there is, in theory, an intention to instantiate some computation, and to think otherwise is tantamount to belief in magic and broken causality, is just confused and born out of perusing popular-scientific materials instead of relying on scientific literature or hands-on experience. > The fire because of input. No they do not fire because of input, they modulate their firing probability based on input, and there are different modalities of input with different effects. Neurons are self-contained biological units (descended, let me remind you, from standalone unicellular organisms, just like the rest of our cells), which actually have an independently developing internal state and even metabolic needs; they are not merely a system of logic gates even if you can approximate their role with a system of equations or an ANN. This is very different, mechanistically and teleologically. Hell, even spiking ANNs would be substantially different from currently dominant models. > So what, magic ? a soul ? If the brain is computing then the substrate is entirely irrelevant Stop dumbing down complex arguments to some low-status culture war opinion you find it easy to dunk on.
- famouswaffles 3y ago
  >Your confidence that neurons and ANN weights and «pulleys and gears» are all equivalent because there is, in theory, an intention to instantiate some computation, and to think otherwise is tantamount to belief in magic and broken causality, is just confused and born out of perusing popular-scientific materials instead of relying on scientific literature or hands-on experience. Computation is substrate independent. I'm not saying neurons and ANN weights and «pulleys and gears» are the same. I'm saying it does not matter because what you perform computation with does not change the results of the computation. If the brain computes, then it doesn't matter what is doing the computation. >No they do not fire because of input, they modulate their firing probability based on input, and there are different modalities of input with different effects. Neurons are self-contained biological units (descended, let me remind you, from standalone unicellular organisms, just like the rest of our cells), which actually have an independently developing internal state and even metabolic needs; they are not merely a system of logic gates even if you can approximate their role with a system of equations or an ANN. This is very different, mechanistically and teleologically. Hell, even spiking ANNs would be substantially different from currently dominant models. Yes, a neuron is firing because of input. To suggest otherwise is to suggest something beyond cause and effect directing the workings of the brain. If that is genuinely not the case then feel free to explain why, rather than an ad hominin attack on someone you don't even know. > So what, magic ? a soul ? If the brain is computing then the substrate is entirely irrelevant >Stop dumbing down complex arguments to some low-status culture war opinion you find it easy to dunk on. I personally don't care if that's what anyone believes. The intention is not to attack anyone. If you believe in a soul or the non religious equivalent, that's fine. We just have different axioms. If you don't believe in a soul(or the equivalent) but somehow think substrate matters then you need to explain why because it makes no sense.
  - kdmccormick 3y ago
    I am not well versed in any of this, but from reading the counterarguments, I think two good points are being made: * Analogies aside, neurons are quite different than NN nodes, because each neuron has an incredibly complex internal cellular state, whereas an NN node just has an integer for state. * A brain is not a "function" in the way that a trained LLM model is. Human life is not a series of input prompts and output prompts. Rather, we experience a fluid stream of stimuli, which our brain multiplexes and reacts to in a variety of ways (speaking, moving, storing memories, moving our pupils, releasing hormones, etc). That is NOT TO SAY a brain violates causality; it's saying that the brain is mechanically doing so much more than an LLM, even if the LLM is better at raw computation. None of this IMO precludes AGI from happening in the medium term future, but I do think we should be careful when making comparisons between AGI and the human brains. Rather than comparing "apples to gorillas", I'd say it's like comparing a calculator to a tree. Yes, the calculator is SIGNIFICANTLY better at multiplication, but that doesn't make it "smarter" than a tree, whatever that means.

airgapstopgap 3y ago

Comments like this are incredibly grating. You condescend to the interlocutor for making a mistake which only exists in your own mistaken world model. Your confidence that neurons and ANN weights and «pulleys and gears» are all equivalent because there is, in theory, an intention to instantiate some computation, and to think otherwise is tantamount to belief in magic and broken causality, is just confused and born out of perusing popular-scientific materials instead of relying on scientific literature or hands-on experience. > The fire because of input. No they do not fire because of input, they modulate their firing probability based on input, and there are different modalities of input with different effects. Neurons are self-contained biological units (descended, let me remind you, from standalone unicellular organisms, just like the rest of our cells), which actually have an independently developing internal state and even metabolic needs; they are not merely a system of logic gates even if you can approximate their role with a system of equations or an ANN. This is very different, mechanistically and teleologically. Hell, even spiking ANNs would be substantially different from currently dominant models. > So what, magic ? a soul ? If the brain is computing then the substrate is entirely irrelevant Stop dumbing down complex arguments to some low-status culture war opinion you find it easy to dunk on.

famouswaffles 3y ago
>Your confidence that neurons and ANN weights and «pulleys and gears» are all equivalent because there is, in theory, an intention to instantiate some computation, and to think otherwise is tantamount to belief in magic and broken causality, is just confused and born out of perusing popular-scientific materials instead of relying on scientific literature or hands-on experience. Computation is substrate independent. I'm not saying neurons and ANN weights and «pulleys and gears» are the same. I'm saying it does not matter because what you perform computation with does not change the results of the computation. If the brain computes, then it doesn't matter what is doing the computation. >No they do not fire because of input, they modulate their firing probability based on input, and there are different modalities of input with different effects. Neurons are self-contained biological units (descended, let me remind you, from standalone unicellular organisms, just like the rest of our cells), which actually have an independently developing internal state and even metabolic needs; they are not merely a system of logic gates even if you can approximate their role with a system of equations or an ANN. This is very different, mechanistically and teleologically. Hell, even spiking ANNs would be substantially different from currently dominant models. Yes, a neuron is firing because of input. To suggest otherwise is to suggest something beyond cause and effect directing the workings of the brain. If that is genuinely not the case then feel free to explain why, rather than an ad hominin attack on someone you don't even know. > So what, magic ? a soul ? If the brain is computing then the substrate is entirely irrelevant >Stop dumbing down complex arguments to some low-status culture war opinion you find it easy to dunk on. I personally don't care if that's what anyone believes. The intention is not to attack anyone. If you believe in a soul or the non religious equivalent, that's fine. We just have different axioms. If you don't believe in a soul(or the equivalent) but somehow think substrate matters then you need to explain why because it makes no sense.
- kdmccormick 3y ago
  I am not well versed in any of this, but from reading the counterarguments, I think two good points are being made: * Analogies aside, neurons are quite different than NN nodes, because each neuron has an incredibly complex internal cellular state, whereas an NN node just has an integer for state. * A brain is not a "function" in the way that a trained LLM model is. Human life is not a series of input prompts and output prompts. Rather, we experience a fluid stream of stimuli, which our brain multiplexes and reacts to in a variety of ways (speaking, moving, storing memories, moving our pupils, releasing hormones, etc). That is NOT TO SAY a brain violates causality; it's saying that the brain is mechanically doing so much more than an LLM, even if the LLM is better at raw computation. None of this IMO precludes AGI from happening in the medium term future, but I do think we should be careful when making comparisons between AGI and the human brains. Rather than comparing "apples to gorillas", I'd say it's like comparing a calculator to a tree. Yes, the calculator is SIGNIFICANTLY better at multiplication, but that doesn't make it "smarter" than a tree, whatever that means.