4 ms·

> 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 ap

by 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"
  - famouswaffles 3y ago
    >The original goal of AI research was to create a "thinkin machine" with intelligence equivalent to that of a human being. And the wright brothers sought to create a flying machine equivalent to that of a bird. They studied birds too. That doesn't mean they wouldn't have taken, "but but it has no feathers, it doesn't flap !!. It's only pretend flying" with anything more than a laugh to your face. People are trying to build intelligence equivalent to a human being, not a human being.
    - max_ 3y ago
      Your now putting words into my mouth. So, I don't think I can benefit you by continuing this discussion. Thanks for talking though.
      - famouswaffles 3y ago
        Feel free to step out of the discussion anytime you like. That said, I don't think I'm putting words in your mouth. That was simply an analogy for the kind of arguments I feel you're making. Ultimately, results are what people care about. "Have they truly mastered x or are they 'mimicking' it?" is a philosophical discussion. Results are the only means you determine something has one property or another. I'm only assuming I'm speaking to an intelligent human on the other end of this discussion. I'm only assuming you are 'conscious'. I have no idea if these things are 'really' true. If I say, 'you're mimicking my intelligence. You're not really intelligent', what proof could you bring to show otherwise that wouldn't just fall back on results? None.
        deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]

by max_ 3y ago

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"
- famouswaffles 3y ago
  >The original goal of AI research was to create a "thinkin machine" with intelligence equivalent to that of a human being. And the wright brothers sought to create a flying machine equivalent to that of a bird. They studied birds too. That doesn't mean they wouldn't have taken, "but but it has no feathers, it doesn't flap !!. It's only pretend flying" with anything more than a laugh to your face. People are trying to build intelligence equivalent to a human being, not a human being.
  - max_ 3y ago
    Your now putting words into my mouth. So, I don't think I can benefit you by continuing this discussion. Thanks for talking though.
    - famouswaffles 3y ago
      Feel free to step out of the discussion anytime you like. That said, I don't think I'm putting words in your mouth. That was simply an analogy for the kind of arguments I feel you're making. Ultimately, results are what people care about. "Have they truly mastered x or are they 'mimicking' it?" is a philosophical discussion. Results are the only means you determine something has one property or another. I'm only assuming I'm speaking to an intelligent human on the other end of this discussion. I'm only assuming you are 'conscious'. I have no idea if these things are 'really' true. If I say, 'you're mimicking my intelligence. You're not really intelligent', what proof could you bring to show otherwise that wouldn't just fall back on results? None.
      - deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]