3 ms·
> I have always firmly maintained that there is less fundamental difference between LLMs and human brains than most people seems to assume. What is your basis
by __loam 2y ago
> I have always firmly maintained that there is less fundamental difference between LLMs and human brains than most people seems to assume.
What is your basis for this? Do you have any evidence or expertise in neuroscience to be able to make this claim?
> Neural nets are universal function approximators, so can't a sufficiently large neural net approximate a full human brain?
We do not understand the brain well enough to make this claim.
> but I don't see any fundamental difference besides "consciousness" which is not well defined to begin with.
Yeah besides the gaping hole in our current understanding of neuroscience, you have some good points I guess.
- hatthew 2y agoComputers can compute anything, with the only limitations being time, space, energy, programming, etc. So far, it seems like all of those things can be increased without bound. I see no reason to believe that there will be some fundamental limitation that prevents us from improving computers to the point that they can compute the equivalent of a human brain. Yes I agree we don't understand the human brain well enough yet, but empirically we can observe that AI agents and human agents behave in similar ways. Sure, it may not end up being a complete copy of a human brain, but if the inputs and outputs are the same, does it make a difference?