3 ms·

machines lack the ability to 'grok'.

ang_cire 3y ago
Yep. Computers are just binary-state machines. Everything you can do with a computer, you could do with water channels and pulleys and gates (if you could assemble trillions and trillions of them). No one would ask whether the water-channel system 'groks' things, but because they are miniaturized and (to 99.9999% of people) esoteric in their actual workings, people treat them like magic. Clarke was right, but sadly it doesn't take alien technology for people to start anthropomorphizing computers or thinking that they magically have transcended mere (though obviously very complexly-arranged) logic gates, it just takes a GUI that spits out algorithmically-generated pictures and text.
- munchausen42 3y ago
  I think most of what a brain cell effectively does could be simulated with water channels, pulleys and gates - so don't expect humans to grok either.
  - ang_cire 3y ago
    > I think most of what a brain cell effectively does I would love to see a source for your belief of this.
- __MatrixMan__ 3y ago
  > No one would ask whether the water-channel system 'groks' things I would. It's very common to describe the flow of electricity as similar to the flow of water. If it's electricity in my brain that allows me to understand, why couldn't there be an analogous system involving water which also understands? Any substrate which supports the necessary logical operations ought to be sufficient. To believe otherwise seems needlessly anthropocentric.
  - jrflowers 3y ago
    > Any substrate which supports the necessary logical operations ought to be sufficient. To believe otherwise seems needlessly anthropocentric. This makes sense. Anything that performs logic using electricity is conscious and comparable to the human brain. This is obviously true because there is no word or concept for anthropomorphizing
Starman_Jones 3y ago
I thought the article did a very good job of explaining why the term 'grokking' was used to describe this emergent behavior, and how it fit Heinlein's original definition. I'm curious which part of their explanation you feel is incorrect.

Yep. Computers are just binary-state machines. Everything you can do with a computer, you could do with water channels and pulleys and gates (if you could assemble trillions and trillions of them). No one would ask whether the water-channel system 'groks' things, but because they are miniaturized and (to 99.9999% of people) esoteric in their actual workings, people treat them like magic. Clarke was right, but sadly it doesn't take alien technology for people to start anthropomorphizing computers or thinking that they magically have transcended mere (though obviously very complexly-arranged) logic gates, it just takes a GUI that spits out algorithmically-generated pictures and text.

munchausen42 3y ago
I think most of what a brain cell effectively does could be simulated with water channels, pulleys and gates - so don't expect humans to grok either.
- ang_cire 3y ago
  > I think most of what a brain cell effectively does I would love to see a source for your belief of this.
__MatrixMan__ 3y ago
> No one would ask whether the water-channel system 'groks' things I would. It's very common to describe the flow of electricity as similar to the flow of water. If it's electricity in my brain that allows me to understand, why couldn't there be an analogous system involving water which also understands? Any substrate which supports the necessary logical operations ought to be sufficient. To believe otherwise seems needlessly anthropocentric.
- jrflowers 3y ago
  > Any substrate which supports the necessary logical operations ought to be sufficient. To believe otherwise seems needlessly anthropocentric. This makes sense. Anything that performs logic using electricity is conscious and comparable to the human brain. This is obviously true because there is no word or concept for anthropomorphizing

Starman_Jones 3y ago

I thought the article did a very good job of explaining why the term 'grokking' was used to describe this emergent behavior, and how it fit Heinlein's original definition. I'm curious which part of their explanation you feel is incorrect.