4 ms·
> That they are sensitive to statistical relationships does not discount their ability to understand. The claim is that nothing but sensitivity to statistical
by simbolit 3y ago
> That they are sensitive to statistical relationships does not discount their ability to understand.
The claim is that nothing but sensitivity to statistical relationships somehow leads to an ability to understand?
I am not going to believe it.
- stevenhuang 3y agoHow do you think our brains work?
- simbolit 3y agoI don't know how our brains work. If you don't just want to be snarky: I think the difference between acquisition and learning is important, I think the role of instruction might be important, I think the role of practice is important.
- stevenhuang 3y agoIf the stream of data that is our 5 senses of reality is devoid of statistical significance of any kind, how do you propose our brains can learn anything? Of course, brains as we know it (or complex systems of any sort for that matter) would not exist in such a reality. In other words it is first and foremost the presence of complex statistical relationships inherent to data/reality that facilitates emergence of other complex systems. Such as the notion of "intelligence" and brains.
- simbolit 3y agoWe need statistical significance. is not the same as Statistical significance is enough. These are two different things.
- hackinthebochs 3y agoIn case you are interested, I wrote a piece in defense of understanding in LLMs[1]. The section under the heading "Why think LLMs have understanding at all" is the most relevant. [1] https://www.reddit.com/r/naturalism/comments/1236vzf https://www.reddit.com/r/naturalism/comments/1236vzf