4 ms·

Wait till all the videos ever created are tokenized and ingested into a training dataset. Carpentry techniques are certainly there. The subtleties of parenting

Wait till all the videos ever created are tokenized and ingested into a training dataset. Carpentry techniques are certainly there. The subtleties of parenting maybe harder to derive from that, but maybe lots of little snippets of people’s lives will add up to a general understanding of parenting. There have certainly been bigger surprises in the field.

oblio 3y ago
What about smells or tastes? Or feelings? I can't help but feel we're at the "aliens watch people eat from space and recreate chemically identical food that has no taste" phase of AI development.
- skeledrew 3y ago
  If the food is chemically identical then the taste would be the same though, since taste (and smell) is about chemistry. I do get what you're saying though.
  - nyokodo 3y ago
    > If the food is chemically identical… If it were 99.9% chemically identical but they left out the salt and spices…
    - skeledrew 3y ago
      I'd say that, when it comes to chemistry, only 100% reproduction can be considered identical. Anything less is to be deemed similar to some degree. And so without the correct amount of salt and/or spices, we're talking about food that's very similar, and not identical.
  - samus 3y ago
    Their perception is very likely to be totally different. * They might not perceive some substances at all, others that we don't notice might make it unpalatable. * Some substances might be perceived differently than us, or be indistinguishable from others. * And some might require getting used to. Note that all of the above phenomena also occur in humans because of genetics, cultural background, or experiences!
    - skeledrew 3y ago
      This may come off as pedantic, but "identical" is a very strong term when it comes to something like chemistry. The smallest chemical difference can manifest as a large physical difference. Consider that genetically, humans are about 60% similar to the fruit fly, yet phenotically, the similarity could be considered under 1%.
  - dekhn 3y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knowledge_argument https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knowledge_argument
    - skeledrew 3y ago
      An interesting thought experiment, but there's a flaw in it, an implicit fallacy that's probably a straw man. On its own, the argument would likely stand that Mary gains new knowledge on actually being exposed to color. However, there is a broader context: this is supporting an argument against physicalism, and in this light it falls apart. There are a couple of missing bits required to complete the experiment in this context. The understanding that knowledge comes in 2 varieties: direct (actual experience) and indirect (description by one with the actual experience using shared language). This understanding brings proper clarity to the original argument, as we are aware - I think - that language is used to create compressed representations of things; something like a perceptual hash function. The other key bit, which I guess we've only considered and extensively explored after the argument was formulated, is that all information coming in via the senses goes to the brain as electrical signals. And we actually have experimental data showing that sensory information can be emulated using machines. Thus, the original argument, to be relevant to the context, should be completed by giving Mary access to a machine that she can program to emulate the electrical signals that represent color experience. I posit that without access to that hypothetical machine, given the context of the experiment, it cannot be said that Mary has "learned everything there is to learn about color". And once she has comprehensively and correctly utilized said machine on herself, she will gain no new knowledge when she is exposed to the world of color. Therefore this experiment cannot be used as an argument against physicalism as originally intended.
      - dekhn 3y ago
        Personally I don't think these complicated thought questions based on subjective experience enlighten us at all.
        skeledrew 3y ago
        OK. I enjoyed the mental exercise though, thanks for that. Also, as someone who's formally studied philosophy, I'd say there is definitely value in thought experiments, particularly as I think we got to an objective level in this case, though we started with the subjective. And determining universal (objective) rules are valued as they usually help guide us to truth, and/or point to ideals to strive for.
- mickdarling 3y ago
  Well, I have synesthetic smell/color senses, so I don’t even know what other humans experience, nor they me. But, I have described it in detail to many people and they seem to get the idea, and can even predict how certain smells will “look” to me. All that took was using words to describe things.
  - nyokodo 3y ago
    > All that took was using words to describe things. All that took was words and a shared experience of smelling.
    - mickdarling 3y ago
      How rude, what do our bathing habits have to do with this? ;-) But, fair point. The gist I was trying to get across is that I don't even know what a plant smells like to you, and you don't know what a plant smells like to me. Those aren't comparable with any objective data. We make guesses, and we try to get close with our descriptions, which are in words. That's the best we can do and we share our senses. Asking more from computers seems overly picky to me.
- visarga 3y ago
  I think we can safely say that any taste, smell, sensation or emotion of any importance has been described 1000 times over in the text corpus of GPT. Even though it is fragmented, by sheer volume there is enough signal in the training set, otherwise it would not be able to generate coherent text. In this case I think the map (language) is asymptotically close to the territory (sensations & experience in general).
andersa 3y ago
What makes you think they aren't already?

oblio 3y ago

What about smells or tastes? Or feelings? I can't help but feel we're at the "aliens watch people eat from space and recreate chemically identical food that has no taste" phase of AI development.

skeledrew 3y ago
If the food is chemically identical then the taste would be the same though, since taste (and smell) is about chemistry. I do get what you're saying though.
- nyokodo 3y ago
  > If the food is chemically identical… If it were 99.9% chemically identical but they left out the salt and spices…
  - skeledrew 3y ago
    I'd say that, when it comes to chemistry, only 100% reproduction can be considered identical. Anything less is to be deemed similar to some degree. And so without the correct amount of salt and/or spices, we're talking about food that's very similar, and not identical.
- samus 3y ago
  Their perception is very likely to be totally different. * They might not perceive some substances at all, others that we don't notice might make it unpalatable. * Some substances might be perceived differently than us, or be indistinguishable from others. * And some might require getting used to. Note that all of the above phenomena also occur in humans because of genetics, cultural background, or experiences!
  - skeledrew 3y ago
    This may come off as pedantic, but "identical" is a very strong term when it comes to something like chemistry. The smallest chemical difference can manifest as a large physical difference. Consider that genetically, humans are about 60% similar to the fruit fly, yet phenotically, the similarity could be considered under 1%.
- dekhn 3y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knowledge_argument https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knowledge_argument
  - skeledrew 3y ago
    An interesting thought experiment, but there's a flaw in it, an implicit fallacy that's probably a straw man. On its own, the argument would likely stand that Mary gains new knowledge on actually being exposed to color. However, there is a broader context: this is supporting an argument against physicalism, and in this light it falls apart. There are a couple of missing bits required to complete the experiment in this context. The understanding that knowledge comes in 2 varieties: direct (actual experience) and indirect (description by one with the actual experience using shared language). This understanding brings proper clarity to the original argument, as we are aware - I think - that language is used to create compressed representations of things; something like a perceptual hash function. The other key bit, which I guess we've only considered and extensively explored after the argument was formulated, is that all information coming in via the senses goes to the brain as electrical signals. And we actually have experimental data showing that sensory information can be emulated using machines. Thus, the original argument, to be relevant to the context, should be completed by giving Mary access to a machine that she can program to emulate the electrical signals that represent color experience. I posit that without access to that hypothetical machine, given the context of the experiment, it cannot be said that Mary has "learned everything there is to learn about color". And once she has comprehensively and correctly utilized said machine on herself, she will gain no new knowledge when she is exposed to the world of color. Therefore this experiment cannot be used as an argument against physicalism as originally intended.
    - dekhn 3y ago
      Personally I don't think these complicated thought questions based on subjective experience enlighten us at all.
      - skeledrew 3y ago
        OK. I enjoyed the mental exercise though, thanks for that. Also, as someone who's formally studied philosophy, I'd say there is definitely value in thought experiments, particularly as I think we got to an objective level in this case, though we started with the subjective. And determining universal (objective) rules are valued as they usually help guide us to truth, and/or point to ideals to strive for.
mickdarling 3y ago
Well, I have synesthetic smell/color senses, so I don’t even know what other humans experience, nor they me. But, I have described it in detail to many people and they seem to get the idea, and can even predict how certain smells will “look” to me. All that took was using words to describe things.
- nyokodo 3y ago
  > All that took was using words to describe things. All that took was words and a shared experience of smelling.
  - mickdarling 3y ago
    How rude, what do our bathing habits have to do with this? ;-) But, fair point. The gist I was trying to get across is that I don't even know what a plant smells like to you, and you don't know what a plant smells like to me. Those aren't comparable with any objective data. We make guesses, and we try to get close with our descriptions, which are in words. That's the best we can do and we share our senses. Asking more from computers seems overly picky to me.
visarga 3y ago
I think we can safely say that any taste, smell, sensation or emotion of any importance has been described 1000 times over in the text corpus of GPT. Even though it is fragmented, by sheer volume there is enough signal in the training set, otherwise it would not be able to generate coherent text. In this case I think the map (language) is asymptotically close to the territory (sensations & experience in general).

andersa 3y ago

What makes you think they aren't already?