5 ms·

What are we doing when we think?

otabdeveloper4 1y ago
We don't know yet. But we do know it's certainly not statistical token prediction. (People can do statistical token prediction too, but that's called "bullshitting", not "thinking". Thinking is a much wider class of activity.)
- LordDragonfang 1y ago
  Do we know that with certainty? Do we actually? Because my understanding is that how "thinking" works is actually still a total mystery. How is it we no for certain that the basis for the analog electric-potential-based computing done by neurons is not based on statistical prediction? Do we have actual evidence of that, or are you just doing "statistical token prediction" yourself?
  - cluckindan 1y ago
    You’re reversing the burden of proof in a similar manner as religious people often do. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, and so on.
    - LordDragonfang 1y ago
      I'm not reversing it lol. You're the one making a claim, the burden of evidence is on you. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, but it is still absence of evidence. Making a claim without any is more religious that not. After all, we know humans can't be descended from monkeys!
cluckindan 1y ago
Human neurons are not reducible to arithmetic artificial neurons in a statistical model. Do not conflate them.
- jeffhuys 1y ago
  Why not, actually?
  - cluckindan 1y ago
    Because we do not have a complete understanding of human neurons. How are we supposed to accurately model something we cannot directly observe?
    - TheDong 1y ago
      Do you also complain when someone says "Half-life 2 has great water-physics" with "Don't call it physics, we still don't understand all the physical laws of the universe, and also they use limited-precision floating-point, so it's not water-physics, it's just a bunch of math"? Like, we've agreed that "water-physics" and "cloth physics" in 3d graphics refers to a mathematical approximation of something we don't actually understand at the subatomic level (are there strings down there? Who knows). Can "thinking" in AI not refer to this intentionally false imitation that has a similar observable outward effect? Like, we're okay saying minecraft's water has "water physics", why are we not okay saying "in the AI context, thinking is a term that externally looks a bit like a human thinking, even though at a deeper layer it's unrelated"? Or is thinking special, is it like "soul" and we must defend the word with our life else we lose our humanity? If I say "that building's been thinking about falling over for 50 years", did I commit a huge faux pas against my humanity?
      - cluckindan 1y ago
        That’s comparing apples to oranges. Nobody is going to be making a real cruise ship based on game water physics simulations. In such a task, better water simulations are used. We have those, because we can directly observe the behavior of water under different conditions. It’s okay because the people doing it are explicitly aware that they are using simulation. AI will get used in real decisions affecting other people, and the people doing those decisions will be influenced by the terminology we choose to use.
      - 1y ago

We don't know yet. But we do know it's certainly not statistical token prediction. (People can do statistical token prediction too, but that's called "bullshitting", not "thinking". Thinking is a much wider class of activity.)

LordDragonfang 1y ago
Do we know that with certainty? Do we actually? Because my understanding is that how "thinking" works is actually still a total mystery. How is it we no for certain that the basis for the analog electric-potential-based computing done by neurons is not based on statistical prediction? Do we have actual evidence of that, or are you just doing "statistical token prediction" yourself?
- cluckindan 1y ago
  You’re reversing the burden of proof in a similar manner as religious people often do. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, and so on.
  - LordDragonfang 1y ago
    I'm not reversing it lol. You're the one making a claim, the burden of evidence is on you. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, but it is still absence of evidence. Making a claim without any is more religious that not. After all, we know humans can't be descended from monkeys!

cluckindan 1y ago

Human neurons are not reducible to arithmetic artificial neurons in a statistical model. Do not conflate them.

jeffhuys 1y ago
Why not, actually?
- cluckindan 1y ago
  Because we do not have a complete understanding of human neurons. How are we supposed to accurately model something we cannot directly observe?
  - TheDong 1y ago
    Do you also complain when someone says "Half-life 2 has great water-physics" with "Don't call it physics, we still don't understand all the physical laws of the universe, and also they use limited-precision floating-point, so it's not water-physics, it's just a bunch of math"? Like, we've agreed that "water-physics" and "cloth physics" in 3d graphics refers to a mathematical approximation of something we don't actually understand at the subatomic level (are there strings down there? Who knows). Can "thinking" in AI not refer to this intentionally false imitation that has a similar observable outward effect? Like, we're okay saying minecraft's water has "water physics", why are we not okay saying "in the AI context, thinking is a term that externally looks a bit like a human thinking, even though at a deeper layer it's unrelated"? Or is thinking special, is it like "soul" and we must defend the word with our life else we lose our humanity? If I say "that building's been thinking about falling over for 50 years", did I commit a huge faux pas against my humanity?
    - cluckindan 1y ago
      That’s comparing apples to oranges. Nobody is going to be making a real cruise ship based on game water physics simulations. In such a task, better water simulations are used. We have those, because we can directly observe the behavior of water under different conditions. It’s okay because the people doing it are explicitly aware that they are using simulation. AI will get used in real decisions affecting other people, and the people doing those decisions will be influenced by the terminology we choose to use.
    - 1y ago