5 ms·

All these words, “sensory input, emotional responses, social interactions, and the unique context of each moment” are all words that we’ve developed and yet hav

All these words, “sensory input, emotional responses, social interactions, and the unique context of each moment” are all words that we’ve developed and yet have no full understanding of. In any philosophy paper they’d be challenged in a second.

radlad 2y ago
> Sensory input refers to the information received by the body's senses, like sight, hearing, touch, taste, and smell, through sensory organs like the eyes, ears, skin, tongue, and nose, which is then transmitted to the brain as electrical signals for processing and interpretation; essentially, it's anything you perceive using your senses. Even if we are talking about the best cameras in the world, they pale in comparison to our eyes. To say nothing of touch, taste, and smell. Advances here look to be far-off. At the end of the day, a brain also processes information completely differently than LLMs. Anyone who says otherwise is both uneducated medically and thinks laughingly little of themselves. Let's say we have an AI which, through peripheral devices, can attain human-level sensory processing. Is it human yet? Can it understand mortality? How about morality? Does it experience pain? Is that something we want to build?
- Eisenstein 2y ago
  So how much less of a human was Helen Keller?
  - radlad 2y ago
    I don't remember stating that having 5 senses were necessary to be human. This reads like a very uncharitable dismissal of what's really a very interesting topic. Helen Keller, despite lacking sight and hearing, was still able to perceive the world through sensory input, including taste, touch, and smell - and although she could not hear, she could still feel warmth and the touch of another human, and experienced emotions. (She may not be the best example for your argument, either, as she was born with sight and hearing.) A better question might be, how much less of a human is a human brain organoid? https://www.michiganmedicine.org/health-lab/artificially-grown-mini-brains-without-animal-components-bring-opportunities-neuroscience https://www.michiganmedicine.org/health-lab/artificially-gro...
    - Eisenstein 2y ago
      You asked 'at what point will be it be considered human with added inputs' so I asked the reverse question. It is no more or less charitable to ask 'when does one stop being human with fewer inputs' than to ask 'when does one become human as inputs are added'.
      - radlad 2y ago
        I see - that's not quite what I was asking. Rather, I asked if the parent believed AI would get a physical body, with all that implies. > Do you think AI will soon get a physical body, and experience "sensory input, emotional responses, social interactions, and the unique context of each moment"? In fact, my point was that it's not clear that all of these features simply "added inputs." (Hence my questions around emotions, pain, mortality, and morality.)
      - goatlover 2y ago
        Assuming 'inputs' is the proper way to understand being human. This is where applying machine and computer metaphors to biology can be misleadng.
- kouru225 2y ago
  You’re looking at the world from a very anthropocentric pov. Sight, sound, touch, feel, taste are all human senses, but they’re all just one thing: ingesting information. An AI can ingest information… that’s just a fact… so… what are we talking about here? Also, we have absolutely no idea how the brain works. Current AI was developed off of modern theories on how the brain works. Saying that AI doesn’t represent how the brain works is ridiculous because the whole story of AI was that we developed a theory of how the brain worked, modeled it through tech, and it worked way better than we thought it would. Shit there was a whole article here about how AI resembles Kant’s theory of the mind. Like I just don’t know how you can be so confident here.
  - radlad 2y ago
    > You’re looking at the world from a very anthropocentric pov. Sight, sound, touch, feel, taste are all human senses, but they’re all just one thing: ingesting information. An AI can ingest information… that’s just a fact… so… what are we talking about here? I think my comment was misunderstood, so let me try to break it down a little. Let's remember that this was in the context of "there's nothing about AI in general that limits it to learning only from prior data": - Senses are used to ingest information, and processors process that information into usable data. The density of the information ingested, and the speed at which it is processed, and the nature of how processing occurs, is vastly different. To further break it down: I'm stating that we don't yet have sensors anywhere near as capable as humans, and that even if we did, without a human brain to process the data, you will receive a different output. Again, see photography for more on this. And we have not even begun to scratch the surface of touch or taste. I understand the touch issue is (one small part) of why general purpose personal robots are not yet viable. I argue that we are a LONG way off from computers being able to interpret the world in a similar fashion to humans. For example, Caltech researches note that while our brain can process thoughts at only 10 bits / second, our sensory systems process 1 billion bits / second: https://www.caltech.edu/about/news/thinking-slowly-the-paradoxical-slowness-of-human-behavior https://www.caltech.edu/about/news/thinking-slowly-the-parad... I believe our sensory capacity is a large (but not complete) part of what it means to be a living animal. - Emotion still appears to be exclusive to living things, not machines. It's unclear what is necessary for this to change this. This is a limiting factor to computers being able to understand the world, "social interactions, and the unique context of each moment," which was the claim in question. - As far as I'm aware, no LLM today exhibits true reasoning or morality. While LLMs are certainly impressive in their ability to recall information from compressed data, and even generate streams of text that look like reasoning, they are still simply decompressing stored data. Morality today is implemented as content filters and fine-tuning of this statistical model. > Also, we have absolutely no idea how the brain works. Current AI was developed off of modern theories on how the brain works. Saying that AI doesn’t represent how the brain works is ridiculous because the whole story of AI was that we developed a theory of how the brain worked, modeled it through tech, and it worked way better than we thought it would. It makes me really sad when people say this, because it's incredibly disingenuous. There are certainly more questions than answers when it comes to the brain, but we _do_ understand quite a lot. It's not surprising to me that people who are focused on technology and AI would anthropomorphize machines, and then claim that (because they aren't aware of how the brain works) "we don't know how the brain works." I had similar beliefs, as a software engineer. But, after watching my partner attend medical school and residency, it's become clear that my own knowledge is far from the sum of humanity's knowledge in this area. You're absolutely right that LLMs borrow concepts from neuroscience, but they are still a VERY long way from "recreating the brain." I genuinely find it sad that people think they are no smarter / better than an LLM. Keep in mind no LLM has even passed a Turing test yet. (No, I'm not talking about the Facebook comments section - I'm talking about a test where someone knowingly communicates with a machine and a human through text, and through targeted questions and analysis of the answers, is unable to accurately determine which is which.) You can get started on some of the differences here: https://buttondown.com/apperceptive/archive/how-llms-are-and-are-not-like-the-brain/ https://buttondown.com/apperceptive/archive/how-llms-are-and... Here's some more food for thought: Can LLMs sleep? Can they dream? What does that look like? Can they form opinions? Can they form meaningful, fulfilling (to themselves) relationships? > Although advanced AI systems can “learn” through processes such as machine learning, this sort of training is fundamentally different from the developmental growth of human intelligence, which is shaped by embodied experiences, including sensory input, emotional responses, social interactions, and the unique context of each moment. These elements shape and form individuals within their personal history. In contrast, AI, lacking a physical body, relies on computational reasoning and learning based on vast datasets that include recorded human experiences and knowledge.
- squigz 2y ago
  > Even if we are talking about the best cameras in the world, they pale in comparison to our eyes Wait, what? Can you elaborate on this? That seems... wrong.
  - radlad 2y ago
    Absolutely! It certainly depends on the metrics you care about. If you want to freeze fast motion, a camera is your best bet. But if you want to see high contrast areas (e.g. looking outside a window from a dark room), you've got a HUGE leg up on cameras. For example, high-end cameras tend to feature maybe 15 stops of dynamic range, while humans eyes can manage up to 24 stops (a "stop" is a doubling or halving of light values.) Additionally, the human eye has a resolution of approximately 576 MP. This is one reason why we can often see details in the distance that disappear in a photo. Finally, while it's arguably not "better," the brain processes images very differently. This is another reason why the image you take often looks "worse" than what you saw in person, or why you can't get the colors to look "quite right", etc. If you get into photography, you start to "see" the things your eye was previously rewriting for you (like a green color cast on skin when you're in the forest) - but it's not the natural way your brain process information. You can also look up estimates on the processing rate of human's sensory system - it's quite impressive. Less related, but things like this are interesting too: https://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=17970 https://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=17970
    - actualwitch 2y ago
      Human eye's resolution is not uniformly distributed though, and AIs are not limited to just two eyes.
      - radlad 2y ago
        That's fair. Dynamic range limitations can also be overcome with additional cameras.
goatlover 2y ago
Philosophy of Mind papers uses that kind of language all the time. It's agreed that humans have sensory input and social interaction, those are facts of biology, psychology and sociology. It's also agreed that human bodies and brains are different in significant ways from modern computers and robots.

radlad 2y ago

> Sensory input refers to the information received by the body's senses, like sight, hearing, touch, taste, and smell, through sensory organs like the eyes, ears, skin, tongue, and nose, which is then transmitted to the brain as electrical signals for processing and interpretation; essentially, it's anything you perceive using your senses. Even if we are talking about the best cameras in the world, they pale in comparison to our eyes. To say nothing of touch, taste, and smell. Advances here look to be far-off. At the end of the day, a brain also processes information completely differently than LLMs. Anyone who says otherwise is both uneducated medically and thinks laughingly little of themselves. Let's say we have an AI which, through peripheral devices, can attain human-level sensory processing. Is it human yet? Can it understand mortality? How about morality? Does it experience pain? Is that something we want to build?

Eisenstein 2y ago
So how much less of a human was Helen Keller?
- radlad 2y ago
  I don't remember stating that having 5 senses were necessary to be human. This reads like a very uncharitable dismissal of what's really a very interesting topic. Helen Keller, despite lacking sight and hearing, was still able to perceive the world through sensory input, including taste, touch, and smell - and although she could not hear, she could still feel warmth and the touch of another human, and experienced emotions. (She may not be the best example for your argument, either, as she was born with sight and hearing.) A better question might be, how much less of a human is a human brain organoid? https://www.michiganmedicine.org/health-lab/artificially-grown-mini-brains-without-animal-components-bring-opportunities-neuroscience https://www.michiganmedicine.org/health-lab/artificially-gro...
  - Eisenstein 2y ago
    You asked 'at what point will be it be considered human with added inputs' so I asked the reverse question. It is no more or less charitable to ask 'when does one stop being human with fewer inputs' than to ask 'when does one become human as inputs are added'.
    - radlad 2y ago
      I see - that's not quite what I was asking. Rather, I asked if the parent believed AI would get a physical body, with all that implies. > Do you think AI will soon get a physical body, and experience "sensory input, emotional responses, social interactions, and the unique context of each moment"? In fact, my point was that it's not clear that all of these features simply "added inputs." (Hence my questions around emotions, pain, mortality, and morality.)
    - goatlover 2y ago
      Assuming 'inputs' is the proper way to understand being human. This is where applying machine and computer metaphors to biology can be misleadng.
kouru225 2y ago
You’re looking at the world from a very anthropocentric pov. Sight, sound, touch, feel, taste are all human senses, but they’re all just one thing: ingesting information. An AI can ingest information… that’s just a fact… so… what are we talking about here? Also, we have absolutely no idea how the brain works. Current AI was developed off of modern theories on how the brain works. Saying that AI doesn’t represent how the brain works is ridiculous because the whole story of AI was that we developed a theory of how the brain worked, modeled it through tech, and it worked way better than we thought it would. Shit there was a whole article here about how AI resembles Kant’s theory of the mind. Like I just don’t know how you can be so confident here.
- radlad 2y ago
  > You’re looking at the world from a very anthropocentric pov. Sight, sound, touch, feel, taste are all human senses, but they’re all just one thing: ingesting information. An AI can ingest information… that’s just a fact… so… what are we talking about here? I think my comment was misunderstood, so let me try to break it down a little. Let's remember that this was in the context of "there's nothing about AI in general that limits it to learning only from prior data": - Senses are used to ingest information, and processors process that information into usable data. The density of the information ingested, and the speed at which it is processed, and the nature of how processing occurs, is vastly different. To further break it down: I'm stating that we don't yet have sensors anywhere near as capable as humans, and that even if we did, without a human brain to process the data, you will receive a different output. Again, see photography for more on this. And we have not even begun to scratch the surface of touch or taste. I understand the touch issue is (one small part) of why general purpose personal robots are not yet viable. I argue that we are a LONG way off from computers being able to interpret the world in a similar fashion to humans. For example, Caltech researches note that while our brain can process thoughts at only 10 bits / second, our sensory systems process 1 billion bits / second: https://www.caltech.edu/about/news/thinking-slowly-the-paradoxical-slowness-of-human-behavior https://www.caltech.edu/about/news/thinking-slowly-the-parad... I believe our sensory capacity is a large (but not complete) part of what it means to be a living animal. - Emotion still appears to be exclusive to living things, not machines. It's unclear what is necessary for this to change this. This is a limiting factor to computers being able to understand the world, "social interactions, and the unique context of each moment," which was the claim in question. - As far as I'm aware, no LLM today exhibits true reasoning or morality. While LLMs are certainly impressive in their ability to recall information from compressed data, and even generate streams of text that look like reasoning, they are still simply decompressing stored data. Morality today is implemented as content filters and fine-tuning of this statistical model. > Also, we have absolutely no idea how the brain works. Current AI was developed off of modern theories on how the brain works. Saying that AI doesn’t represent how the brain works is ridiculous because the whole story of AI was that we developed a theory of how the brain worked, modeled it through tech, and it worked way better than we thought it would. It makes me really sad when people say this, because it's incredibly disingenuous. There are certainly more questions than answers when it comes to the brain, but we _do_ understand quite a lot. It's not surprising to me that people who are focused on technology and AI would anthropomorphize machines, and then claim that (because they aren't aware of how the brain works) "we don't know how the brain works." I had similar beliefs, as a software engineer. But, after watching my partner attend medical school and residency, it's become clear that my own knowledge is far from the sum of humanity's knowledge in this area. You're absolutely right that LLMs borrow concepts from neuroscience, but they are still a VERY long way from "recreating the brain." I genuinely find it sad that people think they are no smarter / better than an LLM. Keep in mind no LLM has even passed a Turing test yet. (No, I'm not talking about the Facebook comments section - I'm talking about a test where someone knowingly communicates with a machine and a human through text, and through targeted questions and analysis of the answers, is unable to accurately determine which is which.) You can get started on some of the differences here: https://buttondown.com/apperceptive/archive/how-llms-are-and-are-not-like-the-brain/ https://buttondown.com/apperceptive/archive/how-llms-are-and... Here's some more food for thought: Can LLMs sleep? Can they dream? What does that look like? Can they form opinions? Can they form meaningful, fulfilling (to themselves) relationships? > Although advanced AI systems can “learn” through processes such as machine learning, this sort of training is fundamentally different from the developmental growth of human intelligence, which is shaped by embodied experiences, including sensory input, emotional responses, social interactions, and the unique context of each moment. These elements shape and form individuals within their personal history. In contrast, AI, lacking a physical body, relies on computational reasoning and learning based on vast datasets that include recorded human experiences and knowledge.
squigz 2y ago
> Even if we are talking about the best cameras in the world, they pale in comparison to our eyes Wait, what? Can you elaborate on this? That seems... wrong.
- radlad 2y ago
  Absolutely! It certainly depends on the metrics you care about. If you want to freeze fast motion, a camera is your best bet. But if you want to see high contrast areas (e.g. looking outside a window from a dark room), you've got a HUGE leg up on cameras. For example, high-end cameras tend to feature maybe 15 stops of dynamic range, while humans eyes can manage up to 24 stops (a "stop" is a doubling or halving of light values.) Additionally, the human eye has a resolution of approximately 576 MP. This is one reason why we can often see details in the distance that disappear in a photo. Finally, while it's arguably not "better," the brain processes images very differently. This is another reason why the image you take often looks "worse" than what you saw in person, or why you can't get the colors to look "quite right", etc. If you get into photography, you start to "see" the things your eye was previously rewriting for you (like a green color cast on skin when you're in the forest) - but it's not the natural way your brain process information. You can also look up estimates on the processing rate of human's sensory system - it's quite impressive. Less related, but things like this are interesting too: https://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=17970 https://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=17970
  - actualwitch 2y ago
    Human eye's resolution is not uniformly distributed though, and AIs are not limited to just two eyes.
    - radlad 2y ago
      That's fair. Dynamic range limitations can also be overcome with additional cameras.

goatlover 2y ago

Philosophy of Mind papers uses that kind of language all the time. It's agreed that humans have sensory input and social interaction, those are facts of biology, psychology and sociology. It's also agreed that human bodies and brains are different in significant ways from modern computers and robots.