4 ms·

Yes. Planes don't fly the same way that birds do. They are go up in the air like birds but what they are doing to get up & be up in the sky is very different.

by max_ 3y ago

Yes. Planes don't fly the same way that birds do. They are go up in the air like birds but what they are doing to get up & be up in the sky is very different. Just like LLMs, planes are way less energy efficient than birds. Just like how Human brains are way more efficient than Convents & LLMs

famouswaffles 3y ago
You didn't answer my question. I didn't ask you whether planes flew like birds do. I asked you if planes are "mimicking" flight and if that's a statement that makes any sense at all.
- max_ 3y ago
  Well it depends on what you mean by flight. If you mean something projecting itself into the air, then yes. Rockets fly, Kites fly, bullets fly, planes too fly. But if by flight you mean replicating what birds do to get into the sky & come down. Rockets, Kites, bullets & planes don't do that.
  - famouswaffles 3y ago
    Bees don't fly like birds. Is a bee "mimicking" flight too ? Does that make any sense ? Why is the bird privileged here ? Bats don't fly like either bees or birds. all these damn mimics running around.
    - max_ 3y ago
      > Bats don't fly like either bees or birds. all these damn mimics running around. Yes, penguins don't swim like sardines either and snakes don't "walk" like apes. > Why is the bird privileged here ? There is no privilege, I was just using it as an example to illustrate that what human beings do is different from what LLMs do, even though they are all called "intelligence".
      - famouswaffles 3y ago
        Great. And the point is..who cares what humans do ? We’re not the arbiter of intelligence anymore than birds are the arbiter of flight. Nobody is trying to build a digital human here so, “they’re not doing what humans do” is about as meaningless as it gets. I mean sure, you could cook up whatever definition of intelligence you like, make it so that humans are the only things that pass just because. Then, what's the point? It's not a useful definition. That’s one point but really there’s more. If you say “mimicking intelligence” is a real meaningful difference, then it should be testable. “There’s a difference here. You can’t see it in the results but trust me bro, it’s there” is really not an argument.
        max_ 3y ago
        > who cares what humans do ? Well scientists do. If your to listen to talks from Yan Lecun & Geoff Hinton or Chomsky. They do care and the do want to figure it out. > Nobody is trying to build a digital human here so, “they’re not doing what humans do” is about as meaningless as it gets. Actually alot of AI researchers are trying todo this. It's just that we haven't yet made any significant strides in the field. It is no coincidence that neural networks are loosely inspired by nature. The original goal of AI research was to create a "thinkin machine" with intelligence equivalent to that of a human being. The value of scientific insights & industrial applications this would make possible are obvious. There haven't been any significant breakthroughs in AI comparable to human intelligence. Industry has simply taken up auxiliary research for applications. But the core scientific goal has not yet been achieved. >I mean sure, you could cook up whatever definition of intelligence you like, make it so that humans are the only things that pass just because. Then, what's the point? It's not a useful definition Intelligence is a very wide spectrum. Computers, calculators, do have something that can be classified as a form of intelligence. But it is more important to understand what they are not, i.e intelligence fully that satisfies what humans are capable of. I mean if someone says they "do drugs". What do they mean? The drink coffee, tea, smoke tobacco, codine, weed or heroin. A pharmacist a law enforcement person, and a highschool kid will have very different classifications on what a drug really is. That is why we need to "cook up definitions" so that we know exactly what someone is talking about. There is no word for "human specific intelligence"

by max_ 3y ago

famouswaffles 3y ago

You didn't answer my question. I didn't ask you whether planes flew like birds do. I asked you if planes are "mimicking" flight and if that's a statement that makes any sense at all.

max_ 3y ago
Well it depends on what you mean by flight. If you mean something projecting itself into the air, then yes. Rockets fly, Kites fly, bullets fly, planes too fly. But if by flight you mean replicating what birds do to get into the sky & come down. Rockets, Kites, bullets & planes don't do that.
- famouswaffles 3y ago
  Bees don't fly like birds. Is a bee "mimicking" flight too ? Does that make any sense ? Why is the bird privileged here ? Bats don't fly like either bees or birds. all these damn mimics running around.
  - max_ 3y ago
    > Bats don't fly like either bees or birds. all these damn mimics running around. Yes, penguins don't swim like sardines either and snakes don't "walk" like apes. > Why is the bird privileged here ? There is no privilege, I was just using it as an example to illustrate that what human beings do is different from what LLMs do, even though they are all called "intelligence".
    - famouswaffles 3y ago
      Great. And the point is..who cares what humans do ? We’re not the arbiter of intelligence anymore than birds are the arbiter of flight. Nobody is trying to build a digital human here so, “they’re not doing what humans do” is about as meaningless as it gets. I mean sure, you could cook up whatever definition of intelligence you like, make it so that humans are the only things that pass just because. Then, what's the point? It's not a useful definition. That’s one point but really there’s more. If you say “mimicking intelligence” is a real meaningful difference, then it should be testable. “There’s a difference here. You can’t see it in the results but trust me bro, it’s there” is really not an argument.
      - max_ 3y ago
        > who cares what humans do ? Well scientists do. If your to listen to talks from Yan Lecun & Geoff Hinton or Chomsky. They do care and the do want to figure it out. > Nobody is trying to build a digital human here so, “they’re not doing what humans do” is about as meaningless as it gets. Actually alot of AI researchers are trying todo this. It's just that we haven't yet made any significant strides in the field. It is no coincidence that neural networks are loosely inspired by nature. The original goal of AI research was to create a "thinkin machine" with intelligence equivalent to that of a human being. The value of scientific insights & industrial applications this would make possible are obvious. There haven't been any significant breakthroughs in AI comparable to human intelligence. Industry has simply taken up auxiliary research for applications. But the core scientific goal has not yet been achieved. >I mean sure, you could cook up whatever definition of intelligence you like, make it so that humans are the only things that pass just because. Then, what's the point? It's not a useful definition Intelligence is a very wide spectrum. Computers, calculators, do have something that can be classified as a form of intelligence. But it is more important to understand what they are not, i.e intelligence fully that satisfies what humans are capable of. I mean if someone says they "do drugs". What do they mean? The drink coffee, tea, smoke tobacco, codine, weed or heroin. A pharmacist a law enforcement person, and a highschool kid will have very different classifications on what a drug really is. That is why we need to "cook up definitions" so that we know exactly what someone is talking about. There is no word for "human specific intelligence"