6 ms·

> there is missing philosophy I doubt it. Human intelligence evolved from organisms much less intelligent than LLMs and no philosophy was needed. Just trial an

> there is missing philosophy I doubt it. Human intelligence evolved from organisms much less intelligent than LLMs and no philosophy was needed. Just trial and error and competition.

solid_fuel 1y ago
We are trying to get there without a few hundred million years of trial and error. To do that we need to lower the search space, and to do that we do actually need more guiding philosophy and a better understanding of intelligence.
- fzzzy 1y ago
  Lower the search space or increase the search speed
  - balamatom 1y ago
    Instead what they usually do is lower the fidelity and think they've done what you said. Which results in them getting eaten. Once eaten, they can't learn from mistakes no mo. Their problem. Because if we don't mix up "intelligence" the phenomenon of increasingly complex self-organization in living systems, with "intelligence" our experience of being able to mentally model complex phenomena in order to interact with them, then it becomes easy to see how the search speed you talk of is already growing exponentially. In fact, that's all it does. Culture goes faster than genetic selection. Printing goes faster than writing. Democracy is faster than theocracy. Radio is faster than post. A computer is faster than a brain. LLMs are faster than trained monkeys and complain less. All across the planet, systems bootstrap themselves into more advanced systems as soon as I look at 'em, and I presume even when I don't. OTOH, all the metaphysics stuff about "sentience" and "sapience" that people who can't tell one from the other love to talk past each other about - all that only comes into view if one were to what's happening with the search space if the search speed is increasing at a forever increasing rate. Such as, whether the search space is finite, whether it's mutable, in what order to search, is it ethical to operate from quantized representations of it, funky sketchy scary stuff the lot of it. One's underlying assumptions about this process determine much of one's outlook on life as well as complex socially organized activities. One usually receives those through acculturation and may be unaware of what they say exactly.
- tim333 1y ago
  If you look at AI systems that have worked like chess and go programs and LLMs, they came from understanding the problems and engineering approaches but not really philosophy.
fuckaj 1y ago
The physical universe has much higher throughput and lower latency than our computer emulating a digital world.
- tomrod 1y ago
  Wouldn't it be nice if LLMs emulated the real world! They predict next likely text token. That we can do so much with that is an absolute testament to the brilliance of researchers, engineers, and product builders. We are not yet creating a god in any sense.
  - fuckaj 1y ago
    I mean that the computing power available to evolution and biological processes for training is magnitudes higher than for an LLM.
    - tomrod 1y ago
      Is it? Seems like C. elegans does just fine with limited compute. Despite our inability to model it in OpenWorm.
crystal_revenge 1y ago
The magical thinking around LLMs is getting bizarre now. LLMs are not “intelligent” in any meaningful biological sense. Watch a spider modify its web to adapt to changing conditions and you’ll realize just how far we have to go. LLMs sometimes echo our own reasoning back at us in a way that sounds intelligent and is often useful, but don’t mistake this for “intelligence”
- danenania 1y ago
  The idea that biological intelligence is impossible to replicate by other means would seem to imply that there’s something magical about biology.
  - charcircuit 1y ago
    There very well could be something magical about it.
    - danenania 1y ago
      It’s fine to think that—many clearly do. But it would be more honest and productive imo if people would just say outright when they don’t think AGI is possible (or that AI can never be “real intelligence”) for religious reasons, rather than pretending there’s a rational basis.
      - gls2ro 1y ago
        AGI is not possible because we dont yet have a clear and commonly agreed definition of intelligence and more importantly we dont have a definition for consciousness nor we can define clearly (if there is) the link between those two. until we got that AGI is just a magic word. When we will have those two clear definitions that means we understood them and then we can work toward AGI.
      - deleted 1y ago
        [deleted]
      - 1y ago

> there is missing philosophy I doubt it. Human intelligence evolved from organisms much less intelligent than LLMs and no philosophy was needed. Just trial and error and competition.

solid_fuel 1y ago

We are trying to get there without a few hundred million years of trial and error. To do that we need to lower the search space, and to do that we do actually need more guiding philosophy and a better understanding of intelligence.

fzzzy 1y ago
Lower the search space or increase the search speed
- balamatom 1y ago
  Instead what they usually do is lower the fidelity and think they've done what you said. Which results in them getting eaten. Once eaten, they can't learn from mistakes no mo. Their problem. Because if we don't mix up "intelligence" the phenomenon of increasingly complex self-organization in living systems, with "intelligence" our experience of being able to mentally model complex phenomena in order to interact with them, then it becomes easy to see how the search speed you talk of is already growing exponentially. In fact, that's all it does. Culture goes faster than genetic selection. Printing goes faster than writing. Democracy is faster than theocracy. Radio is faster than post. A computer is faster than a brain. LLMs are faster than trained monkeys and complain less. All across the planet, systems bootstrap themselves into more advanced systems as soon as I look at 'em, and I presume even when I don't. OTOH, all the metaphysics stuff about "sentience" and "sapience" that people who can't tell one from the other love to talk past each other about - all that only comes into view if one were to what's happening with the search space if the search speed is increasing at a forever increasing rate. Such as, whether the search space is finite, whether it's mutable, in what order to search, is it ethical to operate from quantized representations of it, funky sketchy scary stuff the lot of it. One's underlying assumptions about this process determine much of one's outlook on life as well as complex socially organized activities. One usually receives those through acculturation and may be unaware of what they say exactly.
tim333 1y ago
If you look at AI systems that have worked like chess and go programs and LLMs, they came from understanding the problems and engineering approaches but not really philosophy.

fuckaj 1y ago

The physical universe has much higher throughput and lower latency than our computer emulating a digital world.

tomrod 1y ago
Wouldn't it be nice if LLMs emulated the real world! They predict next likely text token. That we can do so much with that is an absolute testament to the brilliance of researchers, engineers, and product builders. We are not yet creating a god in any sense.
- fuckaj 1y ago
  I mean that the computing power available to evolution and biological processes for training is magnitudes higher than for an LLM.
  - tomrod 1y ago
    Is it? Seems like C. elegans does just fine with limited compute. Despite our inability to model it in OpenWorm.

crystal_revenge 1y ago

The magical thinking around LLMs is getting bizarre now. LLMs are not “intelligent” in any meaningful biological sense. Watch a spider modify its web to adapt to changing conditions and you’ll realize just how far we have to go. LLMs sometimes echo our own reasoning back at us in a way that sounds intelligent and is often useful, but don’t mistake this for “intelligence”

danenania 1y ago
The idea that biological intelligence is impossible to replicate by other means would seem to imply that there’s something magical about biology.
- charcircuit 1y ago
  There very well could be something magical about it.
  - danenania 1y ago
    It’s fine to think that—many clearly do. But it would be more honest and productive imo if people would just say outright when they don’t think AGI is possible (or that AI can never be “real intelligence”) for religious reasons, rather than pretending there’s a rational basis.
    - gls2ro 1y ago
      AGI is not possible because we dont yet have a clear and commonly agreed definition of intelligence and more importantly we dont have a definition for consciousness nor we can define clearly (if there is) the link between those two. until we got that AGI is just a magic word. When we will have those two clear definitions that means we understood them and then we can work toward AGI.
    - deleted 1y ago
      [deleted]
    - 1y ago