4 ms·
> based on a premise that human intelligence cannot be reduced to next token prediction It can't. No one with any credentials in the study of human intelligenc
by krainboltgreene 2y ago
> based on a premise that human intelligence cannot be reduced to next token prediction
It can't. No one with any credentials in the study of human intelligence is saying that unless they're talking to like high schoolers as a way of simplifying a complex field.
- naasking 2y agoThis is either bullshit or tautologically true, depending specifically what you mean. The study of human intelligence does not take place at the level of tokens, so of course they wouldn't say that. The whole field is arguably reducible to physical phenomena though, and fundamental physical beables are devoid of intrinsic semantic content, and thus can be ultimately represented by tokens. What ultimately matters is the constructed high dimensional network that relates tokens and the algorithm that can traverse, encode and decode this network, that's what encodes knowledge.
- krainboltgreene 2y agoNo. You're wrong about this. You cannot simply reduce human intelligence to this definition and also be correct.
- naasking 2y agoBecause...?
- krainboltgreene 2y agoFor the same reason you can't reduce a human to simply a bag of atoms and expect to understand the person.
- naasking 2y agoBut humans are a specific type of a bag of atoms, and humans do (mostly) understand what they say and do, so that's not a legitimate argument against the reducibility of "understanding" to a such a bag of atoms (or specific kind of next token prediction for LLMs).
- Jarwain 2y agoWhy? Frankly, based on a looot of introspection and messing around with altered states of consciousness, it feels pretty on point and lines up with how I see my brain working.