6 ms·

> then the statistical models get better Maybe. The statistical models are definitely better at natural language processing now, but they still fail on analyt

by lisper 3y ago

> then the statistical models get better Maybe. The statistical models are definitely better at natural language processing now, but they still fail on analytical tasks. Of course, human brains are statistical models, so there's an existence proof that a sufficiently large statistical model is, well, sufficient. But that doesn't mean that you couldn't do better with an intelligently designed co-processor. Even humans do better with a pocket calculator, or even a sheet of paper, than they do with their unaided brains.

YeGoblynQueenne 3y ago
If human brains are statistical models, why are human brains so bad at statistics? Edt: btw, same for probabilistic inference, same for logical inference, and same for any other thing anyone's tried as the one true path to AI since the 1950's. Humans have consistently proven bad at everything computers are good at, and that tells us nothing about why humans are good at anything (if, indeed, we are). Let's not assume too much about brains until we find the blueprint, eh?
- TeMPOraL 3y ago
  > If human brains are statistical models, why are human brains so bad at statistics? If CPUs are made of silicon, why are they so bad at simulating semiconductors? Or why CPUs are so bad at emulating CPUs? If JavaScript runs on a CPU, why is it so bad at doing bitwise stuff? Etc. What the runtime is made of is entirely separate of what's running on it. Same is with human brain (substrate) and human consciousness (software), or humans (substrate) and bureaucracy (runtime) and corporations (software).
- datascienced 3y ago
  Your question implies it is obvious that a system of statistical models would (or should) be good at statistics. And that the opposite is a paradox. I would ask why you think that is obvious? Being good at statistics is more of a knowledge graph of understanding concepts than a statistical model, I think. Just like understanding a car engine.
- lisper 3y ago
  > why are human brains so bad at statistics? That depends on what you mean by being "bad at statistics." What brains do on a conscious level is very different than what they do at a neurobiological level. Brains are "bad at statistics" on the conscious level, but at the level of neurobiology that's all they do. As an analogy, consider a professional tennis or baseball player. At the neurobiological level those people are extremely good at finding solutions to kinematic equations, but that doesn't mean that they would ace a physics test.
  - YeGoblynQueenne 3y ago
    That is a very big assumption -that brains have conscious and subconscious levels that are good and bad at different things- that needs to be itself proved, before it can be used to support any other line of inquiry. I'm not well versed in the relevant literature at all but my understanding is that research in the area points to the completely opposite direction: that humans e.g. playing baseball do not find solutions to kinematic equations, but instead use simple heuristics that exploit our senses and body configuration, like placing their hands in front of their eyes so that they line up with the ball etc. This makes a lot more sense, not only for humans playing tennis, but for animals surviving in the wild, finding sustenance and shelter, and mates, while avoiding becoming a meal. Consider the Portia spider [1], a spider-hunting spider, itself prey to other hunting spiders, with a brain consisting of a few tens of thousands of neurons and still perfectly capable not only of navigating complex environments in all three space dimensions but also making complex plans involving detours. Just think of how quickly a spider must be able to think that hunts, and is hunted by other spiders -some of the most deadly predators in the animal kingdom. There is no chance of a snowball in hell that such an animal has the time to solve kinematic equations with a few KBs of neurons. Absolutely no chance at all. For that and many other stuff like that it looks very unlikely to me that human brains, or any brains, are like you say. In any case, that sounds positively Freudian and I don't mean that as an insult, but I so could. ______________ [1] My favourite. No, I don't mean meal. I just love this paper; it's almost the best paper in autonomous robotics and planning that I've ever read: https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/psychology/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.568049/full https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/psychology/articles/10....

by lisper 3y ago

YeGoblynQueenne 3y ago

If human brains are statistical models, why are human brains so bad at statistics? Edt: btw, same for probabilistic inference, same for logical inference, and same for any other thing anyone's tried as the one true path to AI since the 1950's. Humans have consistently proven bad at everything computers are good at, and that tells us nothing about why humans are good at anything (if, indeed, we are). Let's not assume too much about brains until we find the blueprint, eh?

TeMPOraL 3y ago
> If human brains are statistical models, why are human brains so bad at statistics? If CPUs are made of silicon, why are they so bad at simulating semiconductors? Or why CPUs are so bad at emulating CPUs? If JavaScript runs on a CPU, why is it so bad at doing bitwise stuff? Etc. What the runtime is made of is entirely separate of what's running on it. Same is with human brain (substrate) and human consciousness (software), or humans (substrate) and bureaucracy (runtime) and corporations (software).
datascienced 3y ago
Your question implies it is obvious that a system of statistical models would (or should) be good at statistics. And that the opposite is a paradox. I would ask why you think that is obvious? Being good at statistics is more of a knowledge graph of understanding concepts than a statistical model, I think. Just like understanding a car engine.
lisper 3y ago
> why are human brains so bad at statistics? That depends on what you mean by being "bad at statistics." What brains do on a conscious level is very different than what they do at a neurobiological level. Brains are "bad at statistics" on the conscious level, but at the level of neurobiology that's all they do. As an analogy, consider a professional tennis or baseball player. At the neurobiological level those people are extremely good at finding solutions to kinematic equations, but that doesn't mean that they would ace a physics test.
- YeGoblynQueenne 3y ago
  That is a very big assumption -that brains have conscious and subconscious levels that are good and bad at different things- that needs to be itself proved, before it can be used to support any other line of inquiry. I'm not well versed in the relevant literature at all but my understanding is that research in the area points to the completely opposite direction: that humans e.g. playing baseball do not find solutions to kinematic equations, but instead use simple heuristics that exploit our senses and body configuration, like placing their hands in front of their eyes so that they line up with the ball etc. This makes a lot more sense, not only for humans playing tennis, but for animals surviving in the wild, finding sustenance and shelter, and mates, while avoiding becoming a meal. Consider the Portia spider [1], a spider-hunting spider, itself prey to other hunting spiders, with a brain consisting of a few tens of thousands of neurons and still perfectly capable not only of navigating complex environments in all three space dimensions but also making complex plans involving detours. Just think of how quickly a spider must be able to think that hunts, and is hunted by other spiders -some of the most deadly predators in the animal kingdom. There is no chance of a snowball in hell that such an animal has the time to solve kinematic equations with a few KBs of neurons. Absolutely no chance at all. For that and many other stuff like that it looks very unlikely to me that human brains, or any brains, are like you say. In any case, that sounds positively Freudian and I don't mean that as an insult, but I so could. ______________ [1] My favourite. No, I don't mean meal. I just love this paper; it's almost the best paper in autonomous robotics and planning that I've ever read: https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/psychology/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.568049/full https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/psychology/articles/10....