3 ms·
But I am saying that is the wrong comparison. The LLM doesn’t need to implement a human brain directly. It needs to implement a sophisticated enough simulation
by swid 2y ago
But I am saying that is the wrong comparison. The LLM doesn’t need to implement a human brain directly. It needs to implement a sophisticated enough simulation of people that the simulation itself contains ”people” who believe in themselves.
I don’t know LLMs do that, but they are excellent function approximators, and the laws of physics which allow for my brain to be conscious also can be considered some function to approximate. If the LLM can approximate that function well enough, then simulated humans would truly believe in their own existence, as I do.
And it isn’t really important whether or not consciousness is part of the simulation or not, if the end result is the simulator is capable of emulating people to a greater extent.
- HarHarVeryFunny 2y agoIf you wanted to build a behavioral simulation of a human, and knew how to do it, then what advantage would there be to trying to get an LLM to emulate this simulator ?! Better just code up your simulator to run efficiently on a supercomputer!
- swid 2y agoThe LLM teaches itself the rules of the simulation by learning to predict what happens next so well. Presumable, running a human simulation by brute forcing physics at a scale large enough to represent a human is completely infeasible, but we can maybe conceive how it would work. LLMs are an impressive engine for predicting “next” that is actually computationally feasible.