3 ms·
Yes, that seems to hold for rocks. But that doesn’t shut down the original post’s premise, unless you hold the answer to what can and cannot be banged together
by refactor_master 8mo ago
Yes, that seems to hold for rocks. But that doesn’t shut down the original post’s premise, unless you hold the answer to what can and cannot be banged together to create emergent intelligence.
- Ygg2 8mo agoExtraordinary assumptions (i.e., AI is conscious) require extraordinary proof. If I told you my bag of words was sentient, I assume you'd need more proof than just my word.
- DiogenesKynikos 8mo agoThe fact that LLMs talk intelligently is the extraordinary proof. It would be difficult for me to prove that you're not an LLM, or for you to prove that I'm not an LLM. That's how good they are.
- Ygg2 8mo agoTalking intelligently isn't a high bar. Eliza could talk intelligently. It's necessary but insufficient.
- DiogenesKynikos 8mo agoTalking intelligently about arbitrary subjects is an incredibly high bar. Eliza could not do anything even remotely approaching that, and this would have been considered black magic by the general public prior to 2022. It's incredible how quickly the bar has been raised here.