3 ms·

> Everyone reading this understands the meaning of a sunrise For a definition of "understands" that resists rigor and repeatability, sure. This is what I mean

by ajross 1y ago

> Everyone reading this understands the meaning of a sunrise For a definition of "understands" that resists rigor and repeatability, sure. This is what I meant by reducing it to a semantic argument. You're just saying that AI is impossible. That doesn't constitute evidence for your position. Your opponents in the argument who feel AGI is imminent are likewise just handwaving. To wit: none of you people have any idea what you're talking about. No one does. So take off the high hat and stop pretending you do.

meroes 1y ago
This all just boils down to the Chinese Room thought experiment, where Im pretty sure the consensus is nothing in the experiment (not the person inside, the whole emergent room, etc) understands Chinese like us. Another example by Searle is a computer simulating digestion is not digesting like a stomach. The people saying AI can’t form from LLMs are in the consensus side of the Chinese Room. The digestion simulator could tell us where every single atom is of a stomach digesting a meal, and it’s still not digestion. Only once the computer simulation breaks down food particles chemically and physically is it digestion. Only once an LLM received photons or has a physical capacity to receive photons is there anything like “seeing a night sky”.
SR2Z 1y ago
> For a definition of "understands" that resists rigor and repeatability, sure. If we had such a definition that was rigorous, we would not care about LLM research and would simply just build machines to understand things for us :)
- ajross 1y ago
  For a sufficiently loose definition of "would simply just", yes. Handwaving away the idea of actually building the thing you think you understand as unimportant is exactly why philosophy is failing us in this moment.
  - SR2Z 1y ago
    Philosophy failed us by not producing any compelling definitions of understanding. If it did, we would BUILD IT. I'm not handwaving it away. The biggest barrier to AGI is that we simply don't understand what intelligence is in any useful way.

by ajross 1y ago

meroes 1y ago

This all just boils down to the Chinese Room thought experiment, where Im pretty sure the consensus is nothing in the experiment (not the person inside, the whole emergent room, etc) understands Chinese like us. Another example by Searle is a computer simulating digestion is not digesting like a stomach. The people saying AI can’t form from LLMs are in the consensus side of the Chinese Room. The digestion simulator could tell us where every single atom is of a stomach digesting a meal, and it’s still not digestion. Only once the computer simulation breaks down food particles chemically and physically is it digestion. Only once an LLM received photons or has a physical capacity to receive photons is there anything like “seeing a night sky”.

SR2Z 1y ago

> For a definition of "understands" that resists rigor and repeatability, sure. If we had such a definition that was rigorous, we would not care about LLM research and would simply just build machines to understand things for us :)

ajross 1y ago
For a sufficiently loose definition of "would simply just", yes. Handwaving away the idea of actually building the thing you think you understand as unimportant is exactly why philosophy is failing us in this moment.
- SR2Z 1y ago
  Philosophy failed us by not producing any compelling definitions of understanding. If it did, we would BUILD IT. I'm not handwaving it away. The biggest barrier to AGI is that we simply don't understand what intelligence is in any useful way.