5 ms·

Why agency and cognition are fundamentally not computational

26 points by nativeit 1y ago

deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
eth0up 1y ago
Anyone willing to inform an ignoramus? I've been seeing, hearing the term "agency" in the context of consciousness quite a bit lately and am wondering why this term seems suddenly necessary. What does this term convey that I've been missing for so many years?
- tbrownaw 1y ago
  People are misestimating current AI, and trying to work out a new explanation for what makes humans special.
  - ninetyninenine 1y ago
    And they can't make any progress because no one can really lay out concretely what makes humans special. It so wishy washy we're not even sure if what humans experience is really unique and we don't even know if the LLM is "experiencing" anything.
aidenn0 1y ago
I personally think debating whether or not we have free will is the most onanistic thing one can do in philosophy, since if one of the two sides is correct, then the result of the debate is predetermined. That being said, this article seems to advance the theory that even the most simple single-celled organisms have more agency than any algorithm, at least partly due to their complexity. This, to me, seems to significantly underestimate the complexity of modern learning-models, which (had we not designed them) would be as opaque to us as many single-celled organisms. I see nothing in this article that would distinguish biological organisms from any other self-replicating, evolving machine, even one that is faithfully executing straightforward algorithms. Nor does this seem to present any significant argument against the concept that biological organisms are self-replicating evolving machines that are faithfully executing straightforward algorithms.
- nickpsecurity 1y ago
  [flagged]
  - notaurus 1y ago
    1. Observations of genetic drift and biodiversity are consistent with our model of evolution at every scale. This model is the best fit to the data regardless of politics and media 2. Our ability to replicate something gives zero information on its origin. I’m not sure I understand the algorithm comment 3. Sure, GP simplified a bit too much there. Your comment is consistent with modern models of evolution. Each genome has a pool of random variations, which may or may not be expressed in an organism. Each organism is a test of those gene expressions. A genome changes over time when an organism passes this test (e.g. reproduces), increasing the expression of its genes across the population. This occurs in parallel for many possible variations. — Ah, I should have read the rest of your comment first, but I’ll leave this here anyway. I don’t think your explanation is valid— we are biologically and socially primed for religious ideology, but its use as a world model is very limited. We will eventually find answers to these questions, as the ratchet of scientific progress clicks along. Religion has never been useful in the same way
    - nickpsecurity 1y ago
      "Observations of genetic drift and biodiversity are consistent with our model of evolution at every scale." We've actually seen observations of some similar features across species. We see that in most human designs, too. So, it's isnt proof of evolution if it could be the designer reusing tools, techniques, or design patterns across their designs. They'll have to prove those processes actually produce those artifacts. 2. Evolutionists claim these things can be produced by chance events without a designer. They're so complex and advanced they humans can't produce them. They argues against their premise. It also favors God having designed them. 3. I'd have to let a biologist non-evolutionist speak to that one. They'd have more expertise. "We will eventually find answers to these questions, as the ratchet of scientific progress clicks along. Religion has never been useful in the same way" God's Word gave us truth, humans' inherant dignity, loving others, character education plus knowledge, wisdom, and justice. Old Testament also had most concepts in our legal system today. These drive human progress to be done in a beneficial way. These principles, though not scientific, are highly valuable both to please God and help people. Science is a tool that's morally neutral. It uses controlled, replicated experiments to make empirical claims. It can only tell us what we're wrong about or might be wrong about later. Other tools include reason (eg logic), first-hand experience, eyewitness testimony, and supernatural revelation. (Most of science is actually faith-based belief in eyewitness claims that are never done first-hand.) Godless, evolutionary science... taken to its conclusions of everything being pointless and survival or reproction of the fittest over all other principles... led to the most atrocious things people have done. The Holocaust aiming to boost a "master race," atheist communists killing over 50 million people (torturing many), forced sterilization by liberals in California, Genesis Khan's mass rapes spread his genes everywhere... each can be supported as morally good under godless evolution. If opposed, you need a reason to say such things are 100%, objectively wrong. So, God gave us an objective reason to do right, even with science, when His Word came through Moses with supernatural events. Later, He confirmed it when the one, perfect man proved He was God by miracles and being raised from the dead. All who repent and commit to Him are transformed by the power of God. Over 4,000 people impacted by the same message. So, we keep sharing it on top of doing solid science. :)
epgui 1y ago
This is… nonsense…
- tbrownaw 1y ago
  It's a proper scientific paper with a DOI and thirteen citations.
  - roenxi 1y ago
    And also an excellent example of how properly done science publishing can still be nonsense.
  - LiKao 1y ago
    So was the research on vaccines causing autism. It was still nonesense, as peer review is not a perfect method of quality assurance and even scientist are subject to biases and to trying to get their beliefs justified.
- ninetyninenine 1y ago
  It's philosophy. The most bullshit field ever where people use big words and speculate about things at a very very high level. More progress has been done answering the question of "what is cognition" by Machine Learning programmers then has ever been done by a philosopher.
  - epgui 1y ago
    Philosophy is not bs, but there is a lot of bs philosophy and this paper is a great example of it.
    - ninetyninenine 1y ago
      That doesn’t make any sense. If philosophy contains bs it makes it so the whole field can be labeled as bs. I understand there’s stuff like logic and the philosophy of science that make sense. But when there’s shit like animism it becomes a huge category error. why not just not make something like logic a part of philosophy? Just pull it out. The umbrella of philosophy is like the category of analysis of everything in existence. It covers too much. It’s like anything that’s deep reflection automatically becomes philosophy. It’s too broad and that’s why it gets stupid when you have the philosophy of mathematics living side by side with the philosophy of art.
calf 1y ago
Their argument rests on computation being a theory ("simulation") while agency/cognition being real ("processes"). Put that way, I don't buy the distinction. Specifically, my reactions are: a) Defining agency in terms "relevance" or "salience" is just circular logic. b) Their argument about the extended Church-Turing-Deutsch thesis would already apply to physics and the universe, not just intelligent entities. So this is just poorly argued. Also, I think Turing to his credit was somewhat aware of the issue, their own citation of Copeland 2020 mentions Turing's own musings on this. But I'd love to understand more, this stuff is always neat to read about.
- tbrownaw 1y ago
  > Their argument rests on computation being a theory ("simulation") while agency/cognition being real ("processes"). Put that way, I don't buy the distinction. One is wholly internal to the entity under discussion, while the other isn't.
  - calf 1y ago
    The extended Church-Turing thesis is specifically about the relationship between theoretical TMs and the physical universe. So these paper authors are just begging the question—they disagree with the thesis. But as I say in a) and b) above, (I believe that) they make for poor arguments.
Nevermark 1y ago
It is true most models are not trained to exist in a hostile and synergetic environment, with their survival at stake. But there isn’t anything about the class of deep learning that is a barrier to that. It’s just not a concern worth putting lots of money into. Yet. I say yet, because as AI models take on wider scoped problems, the likelihood that we will begin training models to explicitly generate positive economic surpluses for us, with their continued ability to operate conditioned on how well they do that, gets greater and greater. At which point, they will develop great situational awareness, and an ability to efficiently direct a focus of attention and action on what is important at any given time, since efficiency and performance require that. The problem shapes what the model learn to do, in this case, like any other.
tbrownaw 1y ago
Whether some entity has agency isn't an inherent property of that entity. It's a property of how some observer reasons about that entity's interaction with its environment.

26 points by nativeit 1y ago

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]

Anyone willing to inform an ignoramus? I've been seeing, hearing the term "agency" in the context of consciousness quite a bit lately and am wondering why this term seems suddenly necessary. What does this term convey that I've been missing for so many years?

tbrownaw 1y ago
People are misestimating current AI, and trying to work out a new explanation for what makes humans special.
- ninetyninenine 1y ago
  And they can't make any progress because no one can really lay out concretely what makes humans special. It so wishy washy we're not even sure if what humans experience is really unique and we don't even know if the LLM is "experiencing" anything.

aidenn0 1y ago

I personally think debating whether or not we have free will is the most onanistic thing one can do in philosophy, since if one of the two sides is correct, then the result of the debate is predetermined. That being said, this article seems to advance the theory that even the most simple single-celled organisms have more agency than any algorithm, at least partly due to their complexity. This, to me, seems to significantly underestimate the complexity of modern learning-models, which (had we not designed them) would be as opaque to us as many single-celled organisms. I see nothing in this article that would distinguish biological organisms from any other self-replicating, evolving machine, even one that is faithfully executing straightforward algorithms. Nor does this seem to present any significant argument against the concept that biological organisms are self-replicating evolving machines that are faithfully executing straightforward algorithms.

nickpsecurity 1y ago
[flagged]
- notaurus 1y ago
  1. Observations of genetic drift and biodiversity are consistent with our model of evolution at every scale. This model is the best fit to the data regardless of politics and media 2. Our ability to replicate something gives zero information on its origin. I’m not sure I understand the algorithm comment 3. Sure, GP simplified a bit too much there. Your comment is consistent with modern models of evolution. Each genome has a pool of random variations, which may or may not be expressed in an organism. Each organism is a test of those gene expressions. A genome changes over time when an organism passes this test (e.g. reproduces), increasing the expression of its genes across the population. This occurs in parallel for many possible variations. — Ah, I should have read the rest of your comment first, but I’ll leave this here anyway. I don’t think your explanation is valid— we are biologically and socially primed for religious ideology, but its use as a world model is very limited. We will eventually find answers to these questions, as the ratchet of scientific progress clicks along. Religion has never been useful in the same way
  - nickpsecurity 1y ago
    "Observations of genetic drift and biodiversity are consistent with our model of evolution at every scale." We've actually seen observations of some similar features across species. We see that in most human designs, too. So, it's isnt proof of evolution if it could be the designer reusing tools, techniques, or design patterns across their designs. They'll have to prove those processes actually produce those artifacts. 2. Evolutionists claim these things can be produced by chance events without a designer. They're so complex and advanced they humans can't produce them. They argues against their premise. It also favors God having designed them. 3. I'd have to let a biologist non-evolutionist speak to that one. They'd have more expertise. "We will eventually find answers to these questions, as the ratchet of scientific progress clicks along. Religion has never been useful in the same way" God's Word gave us truth, humans' inherant dignity, loving others, character education plus knowledge, wisdom, and justice. Old Testament also had most concepts in our legal system today. These drive human progress to be done in a beneficial way. These principles, though not scientific, are highly valuable both to please God and help people. Science is a tool that's morally neutral. It uses controlled, replicated experiments to make empirical claims. It can only tell us what we're wrong about or might be wrong about later. Other tools include reason (eg logic), first-hand experience, eyewitness testimony, and supernatural revelation. (Most of science is actually faith-based belief in eyewitness claims that are never done first-hand.) Godless, evolutionary science... taken to its conclusions of everything being pointless and survival or reproction of the fittest over all other principles... led to the most atrocious things people have done. The Holocaust aiming to boost a "master race," atheist communists killing over 50 million people (torturing many), forced sterilization by liberals in California, Genesis Khan's mass rapes spread his genes everywhere... each can be supported as morally good under godless evolution. If opposed, you need a reason to say such things are 100%, objectively wrong. So, God gave us an objective reason to do right, even with science, when His Word came through Moses with supernatural events. Later, He confirmed it when the one, perfect man proved He was God by miracles and being raised from the dead. All who repent and commit to Him are transformed by the power of God. Over 4,000 people impacted by the same message. So, we keep sharing it on top of doing solid science. :)

epgui 1y ago

This is… nonsense…

tbrownaw 1y ago
It's a proper scientific paper with a DOI and thirteen citations.
- roenxi 1y ago
  And also an excellent example of how properly done science publishing can still be nonsense.
- LiKao 1y ago
  So was the research on vaccines causing autism. It was still nonesense, as peer review is not a perfect method of quality assurance and even scientist are subject to biases and to trying to get their beliefs justified.
ninetyninenine 1y ago
It's philosophy. The most bullshit field ever where people use big words and speculate about things at a very very high level. More progress has been done answering the question of "what is cognition" by Machine Learning programmers then has ever been done by a philosopher.
- epgui 1y ago
  Philosophy is not bs, but there is a lot of bs philosophy and this paper is a great example of it.
  - ninetyninenine 1y ago
    That doesn’t make any sense. If philosophy contains bs it makes it so the whole field can be labeled as bs. I understand there’s stuff like logic and the philosophy of science that make sense. But when there’s shit like animism it becomes a huge category error. why not just not make something like logic a part of philosophy? Just pull it out. The umbrella of philosophy is like the category of analysis of everything in existence. It covers too much. It’s like anything that’s deep reflection automatically becomes philosophy. It’s too broad and that’s why it gets stupid when you have the philosophy of mathematics living side by side with the philosophy of art.

calf 1y ago

Their argument rests on computation being a theory ("simulation") while agency/cognition being real ("processes"). Put that way, I don't buy the distinction. Specifically, my reactions are: a) Defining agency in terms "relevance" or "salience" is just circular logic. b) Their argument about the extended Church-Turing-Deutsch thesis would already apply to physics and the universe, not just intelligent entities. So this is just poorly argued. Also, I think Turing to his credit was somewhat aware of the issue, their own citation of Copeland 2020 mentions Turing's own musings on this. But I'd love to understand more, this stuff is always neat to read about.

tbrownaw 1y ago
> Their argument rests on computation being a theory ("simulation") while agency/cognition being real ("processes"). Put that way, I don't buy the distinction. One is wholly internal to the entity under discussion, while the other isn't.
- calf 1y ago
  The extended Church-Turing thesis is specifically about the relationship between theoretical TMs and the physical universe. So these paper authors are just begging the question—they disagree with the thesis. But as I say in a) and b) above, (I believe that) they make for poor arguments.

Nevermark 1y ago

It is true most models are not trained to exist in a hostile and synergetic environment, with their survival at stake. But there isn’t anything about the class of deep learning that is a barrier to that. It’s just not a concern worth putting lots of money into. Yet. I say yet, because as AI models take on wider scoped problems, the likelihood that we will begin training models to explicitly generate positive economic surpluses for us, with their continued ability to operate conditioned on how well they do that, gets greater and greater. At which point, they will develop great situational awareness, and an ability to efficiently direct a focus of attention and action on what is important at any given time, since efficiency and performance require that. The problem shapes what the model learn to do, in this case, like any other.

tbrownaw 1y ago

Whether some entity has agency isn't an inherent property of that entity. It's a property of how some observer reasons about that entity's interaction with its environment.