5 ms·
>The fundamental problem with today's LLMs that will prevent them from achieving human level intelligence, and creativity, is that they are trained to predict t
by qsera 8mo ago
>The fundamental problem with today's LLMs that will prevent them from achieving human level intelligence, and creativity, is that they are trained to predict training set continuations, which creates two very major limitations:
I am of the opinion that imagination and creativity comes from emotion, hence a machine that cannot "feel" will never be truly intelligent.
One can go ahead and ask, but you are just a lump of meat, if you can feel, then so a computer of similar structure can.
If we assume that physical reality is fundamental, then that might make sense. But what if consciousness is fundamental and reality plays on consciousness?
Then randomness, and in-turn ideas come from the attributes of the fundamental reality that we are in.
I ll try to simplify it. Imagine you having an idea that extends your life for a day. Then from all the possible worlds, in some worlds, you find yourselves living in the next day (in others you are dead). But this "idea" you had, was just one among the infinite sea of possibilities, and your consciousness inside one such world observes you having that idea and survive for a day!
If you want to create a machine that can do that, it implies that you should be a consciousness inside a world in it (because the machine cannot pick valid worlds from infinite samples, but just enables consciousness to exists such suitable worlds). So it cannot be done in our reality!
Mayyyyy be "Quantum Darwinism" is what I am trying to describe here..
- HarHarVeryFunny 8mo ago> I am of the opinion that imagination and creativity comes from emotion How do you see emotion as being necessary for creativity? It sure seems that things like surprise (prediction failure) driven "curiosity" and exploration (I can't predict what will happen if I do X, so let me try) are behind creativity, pushing the boundaries of knowledge and discovering something new. Perhaps you mean artistic creativity rather than scientific, in which case we're talking about different things, but I'd agree with you since the goal of much art is to elicit an emotional response in those engaging with it. I don't think there is anything stopping us from implementing emotions, every bit as real as our own, in some form of artificial life if we want to though. At the end of the day emotion comes down to our primitive brain releasing chemicals like adrenaline, dopamine, etc as a result of certain stimuli, the functioning of our brain/body being affected by those chemicals, and the feedback loop of us then recognizing how our brain/body is operating differently ("I feel sad/exited/afraid" etc). It's all very mechanical. FWIW I think consciousness is also very mechanical, but it seems somewhat irrelevant to the discussion of intelligence/AGI.
- qsera 8mo ago> How do you see emotion as being necessary for creativity? As its reward. Why should anyone be creative if it does not "feel" good? >releasing chemicals like adrenaline, dopamine.. That does not explain how it results in a certain kind of "feeling".. >FWIW I think consciousness is also very mechanical I think I didn't really do an OK job of why I think otherwise in my comment above...
- HarHarVeryFunny 8mo ago> As its reward. Why should anyone be creative if it does not "feel" good? We've evolved to do things that are helpful for survival. Things like curiosity and exploration don't need to feel good - it's just our nature. They only need to attract and keep our attention.
- qsera 8mo ago>it's just our nature Yea, its our nature to feel good about it, which is what evolution does. If you are curious, and if exploration makes you feel good, you have a better chance to survive, and you pass that trait along. I can't believe we are arguing about this.
- HarHarVeryFunny 8mo agoIt seems we're basically in agreement, not arguing! The only quibble I have is whether "feeling good" is the right way to describe how evolution has made us choose to engage in exploration/etc. I don't think it's quite as simple as evolution making things that are good for us feel good, and making things that are bad for us feel bad. There are a bunch of neurotransmitters and hormones that control how we behave. Evolution discourages us from doing things that are bad for us via a range of emotions including things like fear and disgust (not just "feeling bad"). Evolution also encourages us to do, or keep on doing, things that are good for us via a range of emotions such as enjoyment (this is a tasty fruit), contentment (this feels nice - I'll keep doing it) to curiosity, again not just "feeling good". I think curiosity and exploration (which may lead to learning and discovery, which are good for us) are based around attention and focus ... rather than feeling good, it feels interesting.