5 ms·

If I was smarter, I would have predicted that not only would everyone else figure out that world models are a critical step, but that as a direct consequence th

If I was smarter, I would have predicted that not only would everyone else figure out that world models are a critical step, but that as a direct consequence the term "world model" would lose all meaning. Maybe next time. That said, Le Cunn's concept in the blog post is the only one worthy of the title.

Marshferm 1y ago
[dead]
- MangoToupe 1y ago
  All abstraction of reality are bound to fail, but some abstractions are more convincing (or indeed more useful) than others. > Any real AI that veers at control will have to adopt a neurobio path Maybe. Or maybe it's a useless distraction. Only time will tell what signals are meaningful.
  - Marshferm 1y ago
    [dead]
    - MangoToupe 1y ago
      I think you place more meaning in "intelligence" than I do, and certainly more meaning in current models of the brain. We'll see.
      - Marshferm 1y ago
        [dead]
- ryandv 1y ago
  > There is no mind Interesting. What is your response to the cogito?
  - dfabulich 1y ago
    The canonical 20th-century response to "cogito ergo sum" is Wittgenstein's "private-language argument." https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/private-language/ https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/private-language/ When you thought to yourself, "I think therefore I am," in what language did you think it? In English? The English language is an artifact of a community of English speakers. You can't have a language with grammatical rules without a community of speakers to make that language. Almost nobody in the English-speaking community has direct access to the internals of your mind. The community learns things through consensus, e.g. via the scientific method. We know things in English via a community of English-speaking scientists, journalists, historians, etc. etc. Wittgenstein calls these the "structures of life," the ordinary day-to-day work we do to figure out what's true and false, likely and unlikely. As you're probably aware, the scientific method has long struggled to find a "mind" in the brain doing the thinking; all we can find are just atoms, molecules, neurons, doing things, having behaviors. We can't find "thoughts" in the atoms. As far as our ordinary day-to-day scientific method is concerned, we can't find a "mind." But "cogito ergo sum" isn't part of the scientific method. We don't believe "cogito ergo sum" because reproducible experiments have shown it to be true. "Cogito ergo sum" proposes a way of knowing disconnected from the messy structures of life we use in English. So, perhaps you'd say, "oh, good point, I suppose I didn't think 'cogito ergo sum' in English or Latin or whatever, I thought it in a private language known only to me. From this vantage point, I only have direct knowledge of my own existence and my own perceptions in the present moment (since the past is uncertain), but at least I can have 100% certainty of my own existence in that language." The problem is, you really can't have a private language, not a language with words (terms) and grammatical rules and logical inferences. Suppose you assigned a term S to a particular sensation you're having right now. What are the rules of S? What is S and what is not S? Are there any rules for how to use S? How would you know? How would you enforce those rules over time? In a private language, there's no difference between using the term S "correctly" or "incorrectly." There are no rules in a private language; there can't be. Even mathematical proofs are impossible when every term in the proof means anything you want. Descartes didn't originally write "cogito ergo sum" in Latin. He originally published it in French, "je pense, donc je suis." But in Europe, where Descartes was writing, Latin was the universal language, the one known to all sorts of people across the continent. For Descartes, Latin was the language of empire, the language every civilized person knew because their ancestors were forced to learn it at the point of a sword, the language of absolutes. Wittgenstein has a famous line, "Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent." So must we be silent about "cogito ergo sum." "cogito ergo sum" isn't valid in Latin; "je pense, donc je suis" isn't valid in French. It could only be valid in an unspeakable private language, a language with no grammatical rules, no logic, where true and false are indistinguishable. "Cogito ergo sum" could only be valid in an unusable language where everything is meaningless. Thereof, we must remain silent.
- CrackerNews 1y ago
  The first link is about how philosophy and psychology is used to describe brain-cognitive behavior research, which has a limited explanatory capability compared to a hypothetical interpretation using its own vocabulary instead of those borrowed from other fields. The second link is about an AI that detects consciousness in coma patients. The third link is about how coma is associated with a low-complexity and high-predictability passive cortical state. Kickstarting the brain to a high-complexity and low-predictability state of cortical dynamics is a sign of recovery back to consciousness. How does any of this support what you have said?
- IncreasePosts 1y ago
  Does Stevie Wonder not experience the world since he's blind and anosmic?
  - Marshferm 1y ago
    [dead]
- rusk 1y ago
  > There is no mind Thank you for sharing with us your deeply held beliefs
yannyu 1y ago
The naming collision here is unfortunate since the two kinds of models described couldn't be any more different in purpose. Maybe JEPA-type world models should explicitly be called "predictive world models".

Marshferm 1y ago

[dead]

MangoToupe 1y ago
All abstraction of reality are bound to fail, but some abstractions are more convincing (or indeed more useful) than others. > Any real AI that veers at control will have to adopt a neurobio path Maybe. Or maybe it's a useless distraction. Only time will tell what signals are meaningful.
- Marshferm 1y ago
  [dead]
  - MangoToupe 1y ago
    I think you place more meaning in "intelligence" than I do, and certainly more meaning in current models of the brain. We'll see.
    - Marshferm 1y ago
      [dead]
ryandv 1y ago
> There is no mind Interesting. What is your response to the cogito?
- dfabulich 1y ago
  The canonical 20th-century response to "cogito ergo sum" is Wittgenstein's "private-language argument." https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/private-language/ https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/private-language/ When you thought to yourself, "I think therefore I am," in what language did you think it? In English? The English language is an artifact of a community of English speakers. You can't have a language with grammatical rules without a community of speakers to make that language. Almost nobody in the English-speaking community has direct access to the internals of your mind. The community learns things through consensus, e.g. via the scientific method. We know things in English via a community of English-speaking scientists, journalists, historians, etc. etc. Wittgenstein calls these the "structures of life," the ordinary day-to-day work we do to figure out what's true and false, likely and unlikely. As you're probably aware, the scientific method has long struggled to find a "mind" in the brain doing the thinking; all we can find are just atoms, molecules, neurons, doing things, having behaviors. We can't find "thoughts" in the atoms. As far as our ordinary day-to-day scientific method is concerned, we can't find a "mind." But "cogito ergo sum" isn't part of the scientific method. We don't believe "cogito ergo sum" because reproducible experiments have shown it to be true. "Cogito ergo sum" proposes a way of knowing disconnected from the messy structures of life we use in English. So, perhaps you'd say, "oh, good point, I suppose I didn't think 'cogito ergo sum' in English or Latin or whatever, I thought it in a private language known only to me. From this vantage point, I only have direct knowledge of my own existence and my own perceptions in the present moment (since the past is uncertain), but at least I can have 100% certainty of my own existence in that language." The problem is, you really can't have a private language, not a language with words (terms) and grammatical rules and logical inferences. Suppose you assigned a term S to a particular sensation you're having right now. What are the rules of S? What is S and what is not S? Are there any rules for how to use S? How would you know? How would you enforce those rules over time? In a private language, there's no difference between using the term S "correctly" or "incorrectly." There are no rules in a private language; there can't be. Even mathematical proofs are impossible when every term in the proof means anything you want. Descartes didn't originally write "cogito ergo sum" in Latin. He originally published it in French, "je pense, donc je suis." But in Europe, where Descartes was writing, Latin was the universal language, the one known to all sorts of people across the continent. For Descartes, Latin was the language of empire, the language every civilized person knew because their ancestors were forced to learn it at the point of a sword, the language of absolutes. Wittgenstein has a famous line, "Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent." So must we be silent about "cogito ergo sum." "cogito ergo sum" isn't valid in Latin; "je pense, donc je suis" isn't valid in French. It could only be valid in an unspeakable private language, a language with no grammatical rules, no logic, where true and false are indistinguishable. "Cogito ergo sum" could only be valid in an unusable language where everything is meaningless. Thereof, we must remain silent.
CrackerNews 1y ago
The first link is about how philosophy and psychology is used to describe brain-cognitive behavior research, which has a limited explanatory capability compared to a hypothetical interpretation using its own vocabulary instead of those borrowed from other fields. The second link is about an AI that detects consciousness in coma patients. The third link is about how coma is associated with a low-complexity and high-predictability passive cortical state. Kickstarting the brain to a high-complexity and low-predictability state of cortical dynamics is a sign of recovery back to consciousness. How does any of this support what you have said?
IncreasePosts 1y ago
Does Stevie Wonder not experience the world since he's blind and anosmic?
- Marshferm 1y ago
  [dead]
rusk 1y ago
> There is no mind Thank you for sharing with us your deeply held beliefs

yannyu 1y ago

The naming collision here is unfortunate since the two kinds of models described couldn't be any more different in purpose. Maybe JEPA-type world models should explicitly be called "predictive world models".