11 ms·

I think the confusion comes here in believing that humans have some exceptional mechanic for understanding. Ultimately human intelligence is the product of neu

I think the confusion comes here in believing that humans have some exceptional mechanic for understanding. Ultimately human intelligence is the product of neural networks. The only thing that's separates us from ML is both scale (in terms of compute and memory) and agency, the latter giving us the ability to train ourselves. We take inputs, we output behaviors (including language). The idea that we are, in all actuality, deterministic computers is really at the heart of the existential panic around AI.

pests 2y ago
> Ultimately human intelligence is the product of neural networks Citation needed? Sounds like "human intelligence is the product of <current tech hype>"
- h0l0cube 2y ago
  You do realize that artificial neural networks are based on the organic ones? Unless you have some dualist interpretation of intelligence that involves some ethereal intangible soul that somehow eludes all detection, nor holds any explanatory power for intelligence? If you were obliterate your own neural network, by, I dunno, shooting yourself in the head, might that have some affect on your intelligence? Head trauma? Brain cancer? Alzheimer's? Senescence? Do I really need a citation that your brain is where intelligence comes from? *scratches head*
  - pests 2y ago
    Artificial neural networks have departed any biologic principles. So comparing ANN to NN no longer makes sense to me.
    - h0l0cube 2y ago
      > Artificial neural networks have departed any biologic principles. ANNs are perceptrons. Perceptrons mimic biologic principles.
- krisoft 2y ago
  > Citation needed? "Speech and Language Dysfunctions in Patients with Cerebrocortical Disorders Admitted in a Neurosurgical Unit" https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6417298/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6417298/ > Sounds like "human intelligence is the product of <current tech hype>" What? Neural networks is a biological/medical term. Are you confusing it with _artificial_ neural networks?
- Terr_ 2y ago
  In a weird way "hype" undersells how history repeats itself: Rene Descartes promoted the idea of the brain as a pump for the spirit, then in Freud's era it was the steam engine, etc.
  - h0l0cube 2y ago
    You can only be trolling if you say brains aren’t made of neural networks. Poe’s law in effect
    - Terr_ 2y ago
      > if you say brains aren’t made of neural networks. Except biological brains are not made like hyped-up artificial neural networks. The latter are from a simplified hypothesis then massively twisted and cut-down to fit practical electrical engineering constraints. > The only thing that's separates us from [machine learning] is both scale [...] and agency ... And the teensy tiny fact you keep refusing to face which is that they don't work the same. Declaring that the problem is basically solved is just an updated version of a perennial conceit, one which in the past would have involved the electrical current flow or gears.
      - h0l0cube 2y ago
        > simplified hypothesis There's no hypothesizing at this point. Neurons have been studied in the lab since – checks notes – 1873. Modern neural nets have largely taken Occam's Razor rather than precise biomimicry, mostly due to 'The Bitter Lesson' that basic neural networks show more generalizable emergent behaviors when scaled vs being clever about it. e.g., dendrites themselves have been shown to behave something like a multilayer perceptron on their own. So it's really perceptrons all the way down when it comes to brain circuitry. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golgi%27s_method https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golgi%27s_method > electrical current flow or gears Perceptrons were built to be mathematical models of neurons. When gears or 'electricity' were first created/harnessed, there was no intention to build a model of the mind or to mimic neurons whatsoever. There really is no weight to this argument. > Declaring that the problem is basically solved I'm not making that declaration for whatever you might be terming 'the problem' here. I'm just stating that 'understanding' is still (incorrectly) rooted in our belief that our means of computation is exceptional. As far as anyone can tell, 'understanding' isn't substrate dependent, and as far as we know, our 'understanding' comes from neuronal computation.

pests 2y ago

> Ultimately human intelligence is the product of neural networks Citation needed? Sounds like "human intelligence is the product of <current tech hype>"

h0l0cube 2y ago
You do realize that artificial neural networks are based on the organic ones? Unless you have some dualist interpretation of intelligence that involves some ethereal intangible soul that somehow eludes all detection, nor holds any explanatory power for intelligence? If you were obliterate your own neural network, by, I dunno, shooting yourself in the head, might that have some affect on your intelligence? Head trauma? Brain cancer? Alzheimer's? Senescence? Do I really need a citation that your brain is where intelligence comes from? *scratches head*
- pests 2y ago
  Artificial neural networks have departed any biologic principles. So comparing ANN to NN no longer makes sense to me.
  - h0l0cube 2y ago
    > Artificial neural networks have departed any biologic principles. ANNs are perceptrons. Perceptrons mimic biologic principles.
krisoft 2y ago
> Citation needed? "Speech and Language Dysfunctions in Patients with Cerebrocortical Disorders Admitted in a Neurosurgical Unit" https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6417298/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6417298/ > Sounds like "human intelligence is the product of <current tech hype>" What? Neural networks is a biological/medical term. Are you confusing it with _artificial_ neural networks?
Terr_ 2y ago
In a weird way "hype" undersells how history repeats itself: Rene Descartes promoted the idea of the brain as a pump for the spirit, then in Freud's era it was the steam engine, etc.
- h0l0cube 2y ago
  You can only be trolling if you say brains aren’t made of neural networks. Poe’s law in effect
  - Terr_ 2y ago
    > if you say brains aren’t made of neural networks. Except biological brains are not made like hyped-up artificial neural networks. The latter are from a simplified hypothesis then massively twisted and cut-down to fit practical electrical engineering constraints. > The only thing that's separates us from [machine learning] is both scale [...] and agency ... And the teensy tiny fact you keep refusing to face which is that they don't work the same. Declaring that the problem is basically solved is just an updated version of a perennial conceit, one which in the past would have involved the electrical current flow or gears.
    - h0l0cube 2y ago
      > simplified hypothesis There's no hypothesizing at this point. Neurons have been studied in the lab since – checks notes – 1873. Modern neural nets have largely taken Occam's Razor rather than precise biomimicry, mostly due to 'The Bitter Lesson' that basic neural networks show more generalizable emergent behaviors when scaled vs being clever about it. e.g., dendrites themselves have been shown to behave something like a multilayer perceptron on their own. So it's really perceptrons all the way down when it comes to brain circuitry. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golgi%27s_method https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golgi%27s_method > electrical current flow or gears Perceptrons were built to be mathematical models of neurons. When gears or 'electricity' were first created/harnessed, there was no intention to build a model of the mind or to mimic neurons whatsoever. There really is no weight to this argument. > Declaring that the problem is basically solved I'm not making that declaration for whatever you might be terming 'the problem' here. I'm just stating that 'understanding' is still (incorrectly) rooted in our belief that our means of computation is exceptional. As far as anyone can tell, 'understanding' isn't substrate dependent, and as far as we know, our 'understanding' comes from neuronal computation.