4 ms·

The ability to apply knowledge requires understanding. These models don't have the ability to comprehend why something is, instead they just parrot words based

The ability to apply knowledge requires understanding. These models don't have the ability to comprehend why something is, instead they just parrot words based on their likelihood within the context. True comprehension requires awareness.

shkkmo 2y ago
"sentience" has nothing directly to do with knowledge or understanding. The word is often confused with "sapience" which does actually have that meaning. > True comprehension requires awareness. This is unknown. A link between sapience and sentience is plausible but not something we have proof for one way or another.
- batch12 2y ago
  Based on my experience as a sentient being, I believe sentience is a foundational requirement for understanding. The lack of a scientific or mathematical proof doesn't make both options correct, it's either one way or the other.
  - shkkmo 2y ago
    > The lack of a scientific or mathematical proof doesn't make both options correct, it's either one way or the other. A plausible assumption is still an assumption. "Sentience" seems to be ubiquitous in the intelligent systems we've seen, but those have all been biological systems that evolved from common ancestry. While sentience does seem foundational to our sapience, I think it is unwise to take as given that this will hold true in non-biological systems. You say "it's either one way or the other", but in my experience the correct answer to such questions are often "it's complicated." Sentience may an intelligence accelerant that makes the development of sapient systems easier, but isn't actually a necessary property. It may be that sentience is required for sapience, but only if you restrict or stretch the definitions of those terms in specific ways. Is human culture/society sapient or sentient, either in whole or in parts? I can see an argument for saying that human culture as a whole is sapient with being sentient, depending on how you defines thoae terms.
  - pixl97 2y ago
    >doesn't make both options correct, it's either one way or the other. This is kind of like saying the only way to fly is by flapping wings. Balloons, fixed wing aircraft, and rockets would disagree with you. The particular problem you're having in this thread is you're making very strong statements on things that have been neither proven or disproven and we don't have too much more to say than "there is something electrical and chemical occurring there in the brain, but who knows what exactly"
retrac 2y ago
Non-human systems created by humans (social entities like corporations or governments) have a certain kind of decentralized intelligence, one that isn't localized in any one person's mind. Insects and perhaps even plants show adaptive learning behaviour that is often called intelligent. Intelligence without understanding. I used to believe this was a philosophical impossibility, but I'm strongly starting to think otherwise. This is such weedy territory but, perhaps, all living things are intelligent - a bacterium is the application of knowledge (in the form of genes holding biochemical blueprints) to the task of staying alive. John Walker (of Autodesk) got into the philosophy of information theory in his later years and he put it better than I could: > We sense that computers are, if not completely alive, not entirely dead either, and it's their digital storage which ultimately creates this perception. Without digital storage, you can't have life. With digital storage, you don't exactly have a rock any more. - "Computation, Memory, Nature, and Life" https://www.fourmilab.ch/documents/comp_mem_nat_life/ https://www.fourmilab.ch/documents/comp_mem_nat_life/
- batch12 2y ago
  Corporations and governments aren't intelligent, they are not even tangible, just concepts. It's the people operating them that are intelligent. Plants and insects are interesting. I don't know if the behavior there is a result of sentience or if it just resembles intelligence, but both ideas are cool to think about.
  - retrac 2y ago
    Organizations are greater than the sum of their parts. To extend the insect metaphor, an ant colony has complex emergent and intelligent behaviour, far more complicated than any individual ant could be responsible for. For example when invaded, a collaborative and decentralized response from the warrior ants arises, not guided by any individual. Swarm/flock behaviour. I would argue those behaviours sometimes qualify as intelligent. And I would suggest that human societies are like this too.
halfcat 2y ago
”they just parrot words based on their likelihood within the context” That describes how the vast majority of humanity functions. They live within a meme complex, where they have propagator memes, protector memes, and final boss memes, and they spend their entire lives lobbing memes back and forth over the fence.
- batch12 2y ago
  I assume you don't count yourself as one the vast majority of humans. If not, your comment reads as very arrogant and condescending.
  - halfcat 2y ago
    Sorry to disappoint you, but I’m a mess like everyone else. Just as with cognitive bias, awareness of the phenomenon does not preclude one from falling prey to it.
kwhitefoot 2y ago
Some of this topic was addressed ny Peter Watts in Blindsight.

shkkmo 2y ago

"sentience" has nothing directly to do with knowledge or understanding. The word is often confused with "sapience" which does actually have that meaning. > True comprehension requires awareness. This is unknown. A link between sapience and sentience is plausible but not something we have proof for one way or another.

batch12 2y ago
Based on my experience as a sentient being, I believe sentience is a foundational requirement for understanding. The lack of a scientific or mathematical proof doesn't make both options correct, it's either one way or the other.
- shkkmo 2y ago
  > The lack of a scientific or mathematical proof doesn't make both options correct, it's either one way or the other. A plausible assumption is still an assumption. "Sentience" seems to be ubiquitous in the intelligent systems we've seen, but those have all been biological systems that evolved from common ancestry. While sentience does seem foundational to our sapience, I think it is unwise to take as given that this will hold true in non-biological systems. You say "it's either one way or the other", but in my experience the correct answer to such questions are often "it's complicated." Sentience may an intelligence accelerant that makes the development of sapient systems easier, but isn't actually a necessary property. It may be that sentience is required for sapience, but only if you restrict or stretch the definitions of those terms in specific ways. Is human culture/society sapient or sentient, either in whole or in parts? I can see an argument for saying that human culture as a whole is sapient with being sentient, depending on how you defines thoae terms.
- pixl97 2y ago
  >doesn't make both options correct, it's either one way or the other. This is kind of like saying the only way to fly is by flapping wings. Balloons, fixed wing aircraft, and rockets would disagree with you. The particular problem you're having in this thread is you're making very strong statements on things that have been neither proven or disproven and we don't have too much more to say than "there is something electrical and chemical occurring there in the brain, but who knows what exactly"

retrac 2y ago

Non-human systems created by humans (social entities like corporations or governments) have a certain kind of decentralized intelligence, one that isn't localized in any one person's mind. Insects and perhaps even plants show adaptive learning behaviour that is often called intelligent. Intelligence without understanding. I used to believe this was a philosophical impossibility, but I'm strongly starting to think otherwise. This is such weedy territory but, perhaps, all living things are intelligent - a bacterium is the application of knowledge (in the form of genes holding biochemical blueprints) to the task of staying alive. John Walker (of Autodesk) got into the philosophy of information theory in his later years and he put it better than I could: > We sense that computers are, if not completely alive, not entirely dead either, and it's their digital storage which ultimately creates this perception. Without digital storage, you can't have life. With digital storage, you don't exactly have a rock any more. - "Computation, Memory, Nature, and Life" https://www.fourmilab.ch/documents/comp_mem_nat_life/ https://www.fourmilab.ch/documents/comp_mem_nat_life/

batch12 2y ago
Corporations and governments aren't intelligent, they are not even tangible, just concepts. It's the people operating them that are intelligent. Plants and insects are interesting. I don't know if the behavior there is a result of sentience or if it just resembles intelligence, but both ideas are cool to think about.
- retrac 2y ago
  Organizations are greater than the sum of their parts. To extend the insect metaphor, an ant colony has complex emergent and intelligent behaviour, far more complicated than any individual ant could be responsible for. For example when invaded, a collaborative and decentralized response from the warrior ants arises, not guided by any individual. Swarm/flock behaviour. I would argue those behaviours sometimes qualify as intelligent. And I would suggest that human societies are like this too.

halfcat 2y ago

”they just parrot words based on their likelihood within the context” That describes how the vast majority of humanity functions. They live within a meme complex, where they have propagator memes, protector memes, and final boss memes, and they spend their entire lives lobbing memes back and forth over the fence.

batch12 2y ago
I assume you don't count yourself as one the vast majority of humans. If not, your comment reads as very arrogant and condescending.
- halfcat 2y ago
  Sorry to disappoint you, but I’m a mess like everyone else. Just as with cognitive bias, awareness of the phenomenon does not preclude one from falling prey to it.

kwhitefoot 2y ago

Some of this topic was addressed ny Peter Watts in Blindsight.