4 ms·

Animals are conscious, (somewhat) intelligent and have no verbal language. It is an entirely different thing to language,which was created by humans to communi

by ffsm8 1y ago

Animals are conscious, (somewhat) intelligent and have no verbal language. It is an entirely different thing to language,which was created by humans to communicate between us. Language is the baseline to collaboration - not intelligence

vlovich123 1y ago
> and have no verbal language How do you define verbal language? Many animals emit different sounds that others in their community know how to react to. Some even get quite complex in structure (eg dolphins and whales) but I wouldn’t also rule out some species of birds, and some primates to start with. And they can collaborate; elephants, dolphins, and wolves for example collaborate and would die without it. Also it’s completely myopic in terms of ignoring humans who have non verbal language (eg sign language) perfectly capable of cooperation. TLDR: just because you can’t understand an animal doesn’t mean it lacks the capability you failed to actually define properly.
- ozgung 1y ago
  This is one of the last bastions of anthropocentric thinking. I hope this will change in this century. I believe even plants are capable of communication. Everything that changes over time or space can be a signal. And most organisms can generate or detect signals. Which means they do communicate. The term “language” has traditionally been defined from an anthropocentric perspective. Like many other definitions about the intellect (consciousness, reasoning etc.). That’s like a bird saying planes can’t fly because they don’t flap their wings. LLMs use human language mainly because they need to communicate with humans. Their inputs and outputs are human language. But in between, they don’t think in human language.
  - ffsm8 1y ago
    > LLMs use human language mainly because they need to communicate with humans. Their inputs and outputs are human language. But in between, they don’t think in human language. You seem to fundamentally misunderstand what llms are and how they work, honestly. Remove the human language from the model and you end up with nothing. That's the whole issue. Your comment would only make sense if we had real artificial intelligence, but LLMs are quite literally working by predicting the next token - which works incredibly well for a fascimlie of intelligence because there is an incredible amount of written content on the Internet which was written by intelligent people
    - john_minsk 1y ago
      True, but a human child is taught a language. He doesn't come with it. It is an important part of how our brains form.
      - Yizahi 1y ago
        A human child not taught literally anything can see some interesting item extend a hand to it, touch it, interact with it. All decided by the child. Heck, even my cat can see a new toy, go to it and play with it, without any teaching. LLMs can't initiate any task on their own, because they lack thinking/intelligence part.
        tim333 1y ago
        I'm not sure it's the lack of intelligence so much as they aren't generally in a snooze - look for something fun to do - snooze loop like cats.
      - tremon 1y ago
        This to me overstretches the definition of teaching. No, a human baby is not "taught" language, it learns it independently by taking cues from its environment. A child absolutely comes with an innate ability to recognize human sound and the capability to reproduce it. By the time you get to active "teaching", the child has already learned language -- otherwise we'd have a chicken-and-egg problem, since we use language to teach language.
    - mrguyorama 1y ago
      >but LLMs are quite literally working by predicting the next token - which works incredibly well for a fascimlie of intelligence because there is an incredible amount of written content on the Internet which was written by intelligent people An additional facet nobody ever seems to mention: Human language is structured, and seems to follow similar base rules everywhere. That is a huge boon to any statistical model trying to approximate it. That's why simpler forms of language generation are even possible. It's also a large part of why LLMs are able to do some code, but regularly fuck up the meaning when you aren't paying attention. The "shape" of code and language is really simple.
  - john_minsk 1y ago
    Well, you can explain to a plant in your room that E=mc2 in a couple of sentences, a plant can't explain to you how it feels the world. If cows were eating grass and conceptualising what is infinity, and what is her role in the universe, and how she was born, and what would happen after she is dead... we would see a lot of jumpy cows out there.
    - ozgung 1y ago
      This is exactly what I mean by anthropocentric thinking. Plants talk plant things and cows talk about cow issues. Maybe there are alien cows in some planet with larger brains and can do advanced physics in their moo language. Or some giant network of alien fungi discussing about their existential crisis. Maybe ants talk about ant politics by moving their antennae. Maybe they vote and make decisions. Or bees talk about elaborate honey economics by modulating their buzz. Or maybe plants tell bees the best time for picking pollens by changing their colors and smell. Words, after all are just arbitrary ink shapes on paper. Or vibrations in air. Not fundamentally different than any other signal. Meaning is added only by the human brain.
- noduerme 1y ago
  MW defines verbal as "of, relating to, or consisting of words". I don't think anyone would argue that animals don't communicate with each other. Some may even have language we can't interpret, which may consist of something like words. The question is why we would model an AGI after verbal language as opposed to modeling it after the native intelligence of all life which eventually leads to communication as a result. Language and communication is a side-effect of intelligence, it's a compounding interest on intelligence, but it is not intelligence itself, any more than a map is the terrain.
  - matt_kantor 1y ago
    > The question is why we would model an AGI after verbal language as opposed to modeling it after the native intelligence of all life which eventually leads to communication as a result. Because verbal/written language is an abstracted/compressed representation of reality, so it's relatively cheap to process (a high-level natural-language description of an apple takes far fewer bytes to represent than a photo or 3D model of the same apple). Also because there are massive digitized publicly-available collections of language that are easy to train on (the web, libraries of digitized books, etc). I'm just answering your question here, not implying that language processing is the path towards AGI (I personally think it could play a part, but can't be anything close to the whole picture).
ben_w 1y ago
> Animals are conscious All we know about animal consciousness is limited to behaviour, e.g. the subset of the 40 or so "consciousness" definitions which are things like "not asleep" or "responds to environment". We don't know that there's anything like our rich inner world in the mind of a chimpanzee, let alone a dog, let alone a lobster. We don't know what test to make in order to determine if any other intelligence, including humans and AI, actually has an inner experience — including by asking, because we can neither be sure if the failure to report one indicates the absence, nor if the ability to report one is more than just mimicking the voices around them. For the latter, note that many humans with aphantasia only find out that "visualisation" isn't just a metaphor at some point in adulthood, and both before and after this realisation they can still use it as a metaphor without having a mind's eye. > Language is the baseline to collaboration - not intelligence Would you describe intercellular chemical signals in multicellular organisms to be "language"?
- prewett 1y ago
  > We don't know that there's anything like our rich inner world in the mind of a chimpanzee, let alone a dog, let alone a lobster. If be "we don't know" you mean we cannot prove, then, sure, but then we don't know anything aside from maybe mathematics. We have a lot of evidence that animals similar consciousness as we do. Dolphins (or whales?) have been known to push drowning people to the surface like they do for a calf. Killer whales coordinate in hunting, and have taken an animus to small boats, intentionally trying to capsize it. I've seen squirrels in the back yard fake burying a nut, and moving fallen leaves to hide a burial spot. Any one who has had a dog or a cat knows they get lonely and angry and guilty. A friend of mine had personal troubles and abandoned his house for a while; I went over to take pictures so he could AirBnB it, and their cat saw me in the house and was crying really piteously, because it had just grown out of being a kitten with a bunch of kids around and getting lots of attention, and suddenly its whole world was vanished. A speech pathologist made buttons for her dog that said words when pressed, and the dog put sentences together and even had emotional meltdowns on the level of a young child. Parrots seem to be intelligent, and I've read several reports where they give intelligent responses (such as "I'm afraid" when the owner asked if it wanted to be put in the same room as the cat for company while the owner was away [in this case, the owner seems to be lacking in intelligence for thinking that was a good idea]). There was a story linked her some years back about a zoo-keeper who had her baby die, and signed it to the chimpanzee (or gorilla or some-such) females when it wanted to know why she had been gone, and in response the chimpanzee motioned to with its eye suggesting crying, as if asking if she were grieving. I probably have some of those details wrong, but I think there definitely is something there that is qualitatively similar to humans, although not on the same level.

by ffsm8 1y ago

vlovich123 1y ago

> and have no verbal language How do you define verbal language? Many animals emit different sounds that others in their community know how to react to. Some even get quite complex in structure (eg dolphins and whales) but I wouldn’t also rule out some species of birds, and some primates to start with. And they can collaborate; elephants, dolphins, and wolves for example collaborate and would die without it. Also it’s completely myopic in terms of ignoring humans who have non verbal language (eg sign language) perfectly capable of cooperation. TLDR: just because you can’t understand an animal doesn’t mean it lacks the capability you failed to actually define properly.

ozgung 1y ago
This is one of the last bastions of anthropocentric thinking. I hope this will change in this century. I believe even plants are capable of communication. Everything that changes over time or space can be a signal. And most organisms can generate or detect signals. Which means they do communicate. The term “language” has traditionally been defined from an anthropocentric perspective. Like many other definitions about the intellect (consciousness, reasoning etc.). That’s like a bird saying planes can’t fly because they don’t flap their wings. LLMs use human language mainly because they need to communicate with humans. Their inputs and outputs are human language. But in between, they don’t think in human language.
- ffsm8 1y ago
  > LLMs use human language mainly because they need to communicate with humans. Their inputs and outputs are human language. But in between, they don’t think in human language. You seem to fundamentally misunderstand what llms are and how they work, honestly. Remove the human language from the model and you end up with nothing. That's the whole issue. Your comment would only make sense if we had real artificial intelligence, but LLMs are quite literally working by predicting the next token - which works incredibly well for a fascimlie of intelligence because there is an incredible amount of written content on the Internet which was written by intelligent people
  - john_minsk 1y ago
    True, but a human child is taught a language. He doesn't come with it. It is an important part of how our brains form.
    - Yizahi 1y ago
      A human child not taught literally anything can see some interesting item extend a hand to it, touch it, interact with it. All decided by the child. Heck, even my cat can see a new toy, go to it and play with it, without any teaching. LLMs can't initiate any task on their own, because they lack thinking/intelligence part.
      - tim333 1y ago
        I'm not sure it's the lack of intelligence so much as they aren't generally in a snooze - look for something fun to do - snooze loop like cats.
    - tremon 1y ago
      This to me overstretches the definition of teaching. No, a human baby is not "taught" language, it learns it independently by taking cues from its environment. A child absolutely comes with an innate ability to recognize human sound and the capability to reproduce it. By the time you get to active "teaching", the child has already learned language -- otherwise we'd have a chicken-and-egg problem, since we use language to teach language.
  - mrguyorama 1y ago
    >but LLMs are quite literally working by predicting the next token - which works incredibly well for a fascimlie of intelligence because there is an incredible amount of written content on the Internet which was written by intelligent people An additional facet nobody ever seems to mention: Human language is structured, and seems to follow similar base rules everywhere. That is a huge boon to any statistical model trying to approximate it. That's why simpler forms of language generation are even possible. It's also a large part of why LLMs are able to do some code, but regularly fuck up the meaning when you aren't paying attention. The "shape" of code and language is really simple.
- john_minsk 1y ago
  Well, you can explain to a plant in your room that E=mc2 in a couple of sentences, a plant can't explain to you how it feels the world. If cows were eating grass and conceptualising what is infinity, and what is her role in the universe, and how she was born, and what would happen after she is dead... we would see a lot of jumpy cows out there.
  - ozgung 1y ago
    This is exactly what I mean by anthropocentric thinking. Plants talk plant things and cows talk about cow issues. Maybe there are alien cows in some planet with larger brains and can do advanced physics in their moo language. Or some giant network of alien fungi discussing about their existential crisis. Maybe ants talk about ant politics by moving their antennae. Maybe they vote and make decisions. Or bees talk about elaborate honey economics by modulating their buzz. Or maybe plants tell bees the best time for picking pollens by changing their colors and smell. Words, after all are just arbitrary ink shapes on paper. Or vibrations in air. Not fundamentally different than any other signal. Meaning is added only by the human brain.
noduerme 1y ago
MW defines verbal as "of, relating to, or consisting of words". I don't think anyone would argue that animals don't communicate with each other. Some may even have language we can't interpret, which may consist of something like words. The question is why we would model an AGI after verbal language as opposed to modeling it after the native intelligence of all life which eventually leads to communication as a result. Language and communication is a side-effect of intelligence, it's a compounding interest on intelligence, but it is not intelligence itself, any more than a map is the terrain.
- matt_kantor 1y ago
  > The question is why we would model an AGI after verbal language as opposed to modeling it after the native intelligence of all life which eventually leads to communication as a result. Because verbal/written language is an abstracted/compressed representation of reality, so it's relatively cheap to process (a high-level natural-language description of an apple takes far fewer bytes to represent than a photo or 3D model of the same apple). Also because there are massive digitized publicly-available collections of language that are easy to train on (the web, libraries of digitized books, etc). I'm just answering your question here, not implying that language processing is the path towards AGI (I personally think it could play a part, but can't be anything close to the whole picture).

ben_w 1y ago

> Animals are conscious All we know about animal consciousness is limited to behaviour, e.g. the subset of the 40 or so "consciousness" definitions which are things like "not asleep" or "responds to environment". We don't know that there's anything like our rich inner world in the mind of a chimpanzee, let alone a dog, let alone a lobster. We don't know what test to make in order to determine if any other intelligence, including humans and AI, actually has an inner experience — including by asking, because we can neither be sure if the failure to report one indicates the absence, nor if the ability to report one is more than just mimicking the voices around them. For the latter, note that many humans with aphantasia only find out that "visualisation" isn't just a metaphor at some point in adulthood, and both before and after this realisation they can still use it as a metaphor without having a mind's eye. > Language is the baseline to collaboration - not intelligence Would you describe intercellular chemical signals in multicellular organisms to be "language"?

prewett 1y ago
> We don't know that there's anything like our rich inner world in the mind of a chimpanzee, let alone a dog, let alone a lobster. If be "we don't know" you mean we cannot prove, then, sure, but then we don't know anything aside from maybe mathematics. We have a lot of evidence that animals similar consciousness as we do. Dolphins (or whales?) have been known to push drowning people to the surface like they do for a calf. Killer whales coordinate in hunting, and have taken an animus to small boats, intentionally trying to capsize it. I've seen squirrels in the back yard fake burying a nut, and moving fallen leaves to hide a burial spot. Any one who has had a dog or a cat knows they get lonely and angry and guilty. A friend of mine had personal troubles and abandoned his house for a while; I went over to take pictures so he could AirBnB it, and their cat saw me in the house and was crying really piteously, because it had just grown out of being a kitten with a bunch of kids around and getting lots of attention, and suddenly its whole world was vanished. A speech pathologist made buttons for her dog that said words when pressed, and the dog put sentences together and even had emotional meltdowns on the level of a young child. Parrots seem to be intelligent, and I've read several reports where they give intelligent responses (such as "I'm afraid" when the owner asked if it wanted to be put in the same room as the cat for company while the owner was away [in this case, the owner seems to be lacking in intelligence for thinking that was a good idea]). There was a story linked her some years back about a zoo-keeper who had her baby die, and signed it to the chimpanzee (or gorilla or some-such) females when it wanted to know why she had been gone, and in response the chimpanzee motioned to with its eye suggesting crying, as if asking if she were grieving. I probably have some of those details wrong, but I think there definitely is something there that is qualitatively similar to humans, although not on the same level.