4 ms·

they can think just not in the same abstract platonic way that a human mind can

by lerp-io 9mo ago

deleted 9mo ago
[deleted]
HPsquared 9mo ago
I rather approach it from a Cartesian perspective. A context window is just that, it's not "existence". And because they do not exist in the world the same way as a human does, they do not think in the same way a human does (reversal of "I think therefore I am")
- bonesss 9mo ago
  I have a context matrix, therefore I transform?
  - deleted 9mo ago
    [deleted]
  - HPsquared 9mo ago
    An LLM doesn't have a valid concept of "I" because the data and algorithm it comprises could be run deterministically on any hardware, even multiple times, held in storage, rewound, edited and so on. There is no unique subject, there is no "I". The "life" or "soul" or "session ID" when that sentence is generated, is not known by itself to be unique.
    - fc417fc802 9mo ago
      > because the data and algorithm it comprises could be run deterministically on any hardware, even multiple times, held in storage, rewound, edited and so on. Quite the assumption you're making that the same thing does not apply to humans. Not having the technology is not the same thing as not being possible.
    - lerp-io 9mo ago
      moot argument imo. u can do same with life or anything if you have access to tools, knowledge and time
dagss 9mo ago
Your mind must work differently than mine. I have programmed for 20 years, I have a PhD in astrophysics.. And my "reasoning" is pretty much like a long ChatGPT verbal and sometimes not-so-verbal (visual) conversation with myself. If my mind really did abstract platonic thinking I think answers to hard problems would just instantly appear to me, without flaws. But only problems I hve solved before and can pattern match do that. And if I have to think any new thoughts I feel that process is rather similar to how LLMs work. It is the same for history of science really -- only thoughts that build small steps on previous thoughts and participate in a conversation actually are thought by humans. Totally new leaps, which a "platonic thinking machines" should easily do, do not seem to happen.. Humans are, IMO, conversation machines too...
- lerp-io 9mo ago
  it’s very different architectures for brain vs modern transformer even though they are related which is why it may seem easy for some to draw analogies

they can think just not in the same abstract platonic way that a human mind can

by lerp-io 9mo ago

they can think just not in the same abstract platonic way that a human mind can

deleted 9mo ago

[deleted]

HPsquared 9mo ago

I rather approach it from a Cartesian perspective. A context window is just that, it's not "existence". And because they do not exist in the world the same way as a human does, they do not think in the same way a human does (reversal of "I think therefore I am")

bonesss 9mo ago
I have a context matrix, therefore I transform?
- deleted 9mo ago
  [deleted]
- HPsquared 9mo ago
  An LLM doesn't have a valid concept of "I" because the data and algorithm it comprises could be run deterministically on any hardware, even multiple times, held in storage, rewound, edited and so on. There is no unique subject, there is no "I". The "life" or "soul" or "session ID" when that sentence is generated, is not known by itself to be unique.
  - fc417fc802 9mo ago
    > because the data and algorithm it comprises could be run deterministically on any hardware, even multiple times, held in storage, rewound, edited and so on. Quite the assumption you're making that the same thing does not apply to humans. Not having the technology is not the same thing as not being possible.
  - lerp-io 9mo ago
    moot argument imo. u can do same with life or anything if you have access to tools, knowledge and time

dagss 9mo ago

Your mind must work differently than mine. I have programmed for 20 years, I have a PhD in astrophysics.. And my "reasoning" is pretty much like a long ChatGPT verbal and sometimes not-so-verbal (visual) conversation with myself. If my mind really did abstract platonic thinking I think answers to hard problems would just instantly appear to me, without flaws. But only problems I hve solved before and can pattern match do that. And if I have to think any new thoughts I feel that process is rather similar to how LLMs work. It is the same for history of science really -- only thoughts that build small steps on previous thoughts and participate in a conversation actually are thought by humans. Totally new leaps, which a "platonic thinking machines" should easily do, do not seem to happen.. Humans are, IMO, conversation machines too...

lerp-io 9mo ago
it’s very different architectures for brain vs modern transformer even though they are related which is why it may seem easy for some to draw analogies