4 ms·

We don't have a complete enough theory of neuroscience to conclude that much of human "reasoning" is not "algorithmic pattern matching mixed with statistical li

We don't have a complete enough theory of neuroscience to conclude that much of human "reasoning" is not "algorithmic pattern matching mixed with statistical likelihoods of success". Regardless of how it models intelligence, why is it not AI? Do you mean it is not AGI? A system that can take a piece of text as input and output a reasonable response is obviously exhibiting some form of intelligence, regardless of the internal workings.

no_wizard 2y ago
It’s easy to attribute intelligence these systems. They have a flexibility and unpredictability that hasn't typically been associated with computers, but it all rests on (relatively) simple mathematics. We know this is true. We also know that means it has limitations and can't actually reason information. The corpus of work is huge - and that allows the results to be pretty striking - but once you do hit a corner with any of this tech, it can't simply reason about the unknown. If its not in the training data - or the training data is outdated - it will not be able to course correct at all. Thus, it lacks reasoning capability, which is a fundamental attribute of any form of intelligence.
- justonenote 2y ago
  > it all rests on (relatively) simple mathematics. We know this is true. We also know that means it has limitations and can't actually reason information. What do you imagine is happening inside biological minds that enables reasoning that is something different to, a lot of, "simple mathematics"? You state that because it is built up of simple mathematics it cannot be reasoning, but this does not follow at all, unless you can posit some other mechanism that gives rise to intelligence and reasoning that is not able to be modelled mathematically.
  - no_wizard 2y ago
    Because whats inside our minds is more than mathematics, or we would be able to explain human behavior with the purity of mathematics, and so far, we can't. We can prove the behavior of LLMs with mathematics, because its foundations are constructed. That also means it has the same limits of anything else we use applied mathematics for. Is the broad market analysis that HFT firms use software for to make automated trades also intelligent?
    - justonenote 2y ago
      I mean some people have a definition of intelligence that includes a light switch, it has an internal state, it reacts to external stimuli to affect the world around it, so a light switch is more intelligent than a rock. Leaving aside where you draw the line of what classifies as intelligence or not , you seem to be invoking some kind of non-materialist view of the human mind, that there is some other 'essence' that is not based on fundamental physics and that is what gives rise to intelligence. If you subscribe to a materialist world view, that the mind is essentially a biological machine then it has to follow that you can replicate it in software and math. To state otherwise is, as I said, invoking a non-materialistic view that there is something non-physical that gives rise to intelligence.
      - TimorousBestie 2y ago
        No, you don’t need to reach for non-materialistic views in order to conclude that we don’t have a mathematical model (in the sense that we do for an LLM) for how the human brain thinks. We understand neuron activation, kind of, but there’s so much more going on inside the skull-neurotransmitter concentrations, hormonal signals, bundles with specialized architecture-that doesn’t neatly fit into a similar mathematical framework, but clearly contributes in a significant way to whatever we call human intelligence.
        justonenote 2y ago
        > it all rests on (relatively) simple mathematics. We know this is true. We also know that means it has limitations and can't actually reason information. This was the statement I was responding to, it is stating that because it's built on simple mathematics it _cannot_ reason. Yes we don't have a complete mathematical model of human intelligence, but the idea that because it's built on mathematics that we have modelled, that it cannot reason is nonsensical, unless you subscribe to a non-materialist view. In a way, he is saying (not really but close) that if we did model human intelligence with complete fidelity, it would no longer be intelligence.
        2y ago
danielbln 2y ago
I always wonder where people get their confidence from. We know so little about our own cognition, what makes us tick, how consciousness emerges, how about thought processes actually fundamentally work. We don't even know why we dream. Yet people proclaim loudly that X clearly isn't intelligent. Ok, but based on what?
- uoaei 2y ago
  A more reasonable application of Occam's razor is that humans also don't meet the definition of "intelligence". Reasoning and perception are separate faculties and need not align. Just because we feel like we're making decisions, doesn't mean we are.

no_wizard 2y ago

It’s easy to attribute intelligence these systems. They have a flexibility and unpredictability that hasn't typically been associated with computers, but it all rests on (relatively) simple mathematics. We know this is true. We also know that means it has limitations and can't actually reason information. The corpus of work is huge - and that allows the results to be pretty striking - but once you do hit a corner with any of this tech, it can't simply reason about the unknown. If its not in the training data - or the training data is outdated - it will not be able to course correct at all. Thus, it lacks reasoning capability, which is a fundamental attribute of any form of intelligence.

justonenote 2y ago
> it all rests on (relatively) simple mathematics. We know this is true. We also know that means it has limitations and can't actually reason information. What do you imagine is happening inside biological minds that enables reasoning that is something different to, a lot of, "simple mathematics"? You state that because it is built up of simple mathematics it cannot be reasoning, but this does not follow at all, unless you can posit some other mechanism that gives rise to intelligence and reasoning that is not able to be modelled mathematically.
- no_wizard 2y ago
  Because whats inside our minds is more than mathematics, or we would be able to explain human behavior with the purity of mathematics, and so far, we can't. We can prove the behavior of LLMs with mathematics, because its foundations are constructed. That also means it has the same limits of anything else we use applied mathematics for. Is the broad market analysis that HFT firms use software for to make automated trades also intelligent?
  - justonenote 2y ago
    I mean some people have a definition of intelligence that includes a light switch, it has an internal state, it reacts to external stimuli to affect the world around it, so a light switch is more intelligent than a rock. Leaving aside where you draw the line of what classifies as intelligence or not , you seem to be invoking some kind of non-materialist view of the human mind, that there is some other 'essence' that is not based on fundamental physics and that is what gives rise to intelligence. If you subscribe to a materialist world view, that the mind is essentially a biological machine then it has to follow that you can replicate it in software and math. To state otherwise is, as I said, invoking a non-materialistic view that there is something non-physical that gives rise to intelligence.
    - TimorousBestie 2y ago
      No, you don’t need to reach for non-materialistic views in order to conclude that we don’t have a mathematical model (in the sense that we do for an LLM) for how the human brain thinks. We understand neuron activation, kind of, but there’s so much more going on inside the skull-neurotransmitter concentrations, hormonal signals, bundles with specialized architecture-that doesn’t neatly fit into a similar mathematical framework, but clearly contributes in a significant way to whatever we call human intelligence.
      - justonenote 2y ago
        > it all rests on (relatively) simple mathematics. We know this is true. We also know that means it has limitations and can't actually reason information. This was the statement I was responding to, it is stating that because it's built on simple mathematics it _cannot_ reason. Yes we don't have a complete mathematical model of human intelligence, but the idea that because it's built on mathematics that we have modelled, that it cannot reason is nonsensical, unless you subscribe to a non-materialist view. In a way, he is saying (not really but close) that if we did model human intelligence with complete fidelity, it would no longer be intelligence.
        2y ago

danielbln 2y ago

I always wonder where people get their confidence from. We know so little about our own cognition, what makes us tick, how consciousness emerges, how about thought processes actually fundamentally work. We don't even know why we dream. Yet people proclaim loudly that X clearly isn't intelligent. Ok, but based on what?

uoaei 2y ago
A more reasonable application of Occam's razor is that humans also don't meet the definition of "intelligence". Reasoning and perception are separate faculties and need not align. Just because we feel like we're making decisions, doesn't mean we are.