5 ms·

"Truly novel" is fast becoming a True Scotsman.

by eru 8mo ago

getnormality 8mo ago
No True Novelty, No True Understanding, etc. The problem with these bromides is not that they're wrong, it's that they're not even wrong. They're predictive nulls. What observable differences can we expect between an entity with True Understanding and an entity without True Understanding? It's a theological question, not a scientific one. I'm not an AI booster by any means, but I do strongly prefer we address the question of AI agent intelligence scientifically rather than theologically.
- mikkupikku 8mo ago
  Agreed. We should be asking what the machines measurably can or can't do. If it can't be measured, then it doesn't matter from an engineering standpoint. Does it have a soul? Can't measure it, so it doesn't matter.
  - eru 8mo ago
    That's a bit too pessimistic. Often times you can productively find some measurable proxy for the thing you care about but can't measure. Turing's test is a famous example, of that. Sometimes you only have a one-sided proxy. Eg I can't tell you whether Claude has a soul, but I'm fairly sure my dishwasher ain't.
    - thangalin 8mo ago
      Claude has neither a soul nor a warbleflupper.
    - hnfong 8mo ago
      > Turing's test is a famous example Ironically, the Turing test is the OG functionalist approach. The GP's comment basically sums up with the Turing test was designed for.
      - eru 8mo ago
        Yes, but I interpret Turing's paper not as saying "souls don't matter", but as "here's a good proxy that we can actually measure". (I don't know what Turing's opinion on souls is, and it doesn't matter for that paper!)
        hnfong 8mo ago
        I think it's generally accepted that Turing thinks soul doesn't matter when we try to determine whether things have intelligence/ability to think.
    - mikkupikku 8mo ago
      When push came to shove, it turns out nobody really cared about the Turing test and immediately found excuses to discount it as soon as machines blew through that goalpost. It's fundamentally theological, but the thing is, it doesn't matter. It has no impact on what the machines can demonstrably do.
- Marha01 8mo ago
  Well said. That's exactly what has been rubbing me the wrong way with all those "LLMs can never *really* think, ya know" people. Once we pass some level of AI capability (which we perhaps already did?), it essentially turns into an unfalsifiable statement of faith.
- kelseyfrog 8mo ago
  We've tested this in the small with AI art. When people believe they're viewing human-made art which is later revealed to be AI art, they feel disappointed. The actual content is incidental, the story that supports it is more important than the thing itself. It's the same mechanism behind artisanal food, artist struggles, and luxury goods. It is the metaphysical properties we attach to objects or the frames we use to interpret strips of events. We author all of these and then promptly forget we've done so, instead believing they are simply reality.
  - coldtea 8mo ago
    >The actual content is incidental, the story that supports it is more important than the thing itself. The actual content of a work of art is the expression of lived experience. Not its form.
- hnfong 8mo ago
  There are already people dealing with AI intelligence scientifically. That's what benchmarks do. It's the "it's just a stochastic parrot!" camp that's doing the theological work. (and maybe also those in the Singularity camp...) That said, I do think there's value in having people understand what "Understanding" means, which is kinda a theological (philosophical :D) question. IMHO, in every-day language there's a functional part (that can be tested with benchmarks), and there's a subjective part (i.e. what does it feel like to understand something?). Most people without the appropriate training simply mix up these two things, and together with whatever insecurities they have with AI taking over the world (which IMHO is inevitable to some extent), they just express their strong opinions about it online...

"Truly novel" is fast becoming a True Scotsman.

by eru 8mo ago

"Truly novel" is fast becoming a True Scotsman.

No True Novelty, No True Understanding, etc. The problem with these bromides is not that they're wrong, it's that they're not even wrong. They're predictive nulls. What observable differences can we expect between an entity with True Understanding and an entity without True Understanding? It's a theological question, not a scientific one. I'm not an AI booster by any means, but I do strongly prefer we address the question of AI agent intelligence scientifically rather than theologically.

mikkupikku 8mo ago
Agreed. We should be asking what the machines measurably can or can't do. If it can't be measured, then it doesn't matter from an engineering standpoint. Does it have a soul? Can't measure it, so it doesn't matter.
- eru 8mo ago
  That's a bit too pessimistic. Often times you can productively find some measurable proxy for the thing you care about but can't measure. Turing's test is a famous example, of that. Sometimes you only have a one-sided proxy. Eg I can't tell you whether Claude has a soul, but I'm fairly sure my dishwasher ain't.
  - thangalin 8mo ago
    Claude has neither a soul nor a warbleflupper.
  - hnfong 8mo ago
    > Turing's test is a famous example Ironically, the Turing test is the OG functionalist approach. The GP's comment basically sums up with the Turing test was designed for.
    - eru 8mo ago
      Yes, but I interpret Turing's paper not as saying "souls don't matter", but as "here's a good proxy that we can actually measure". (I don't know what Turing's opinion on souls is, and it doesn't matter for that paper!)
      - hnfong 8mo ago
        I think it's generally accepted that Turing thinks soul doesn't matter when we try to determine whether things have intelligence/ability to think.
  - mikkupikku 8mo ago
    When push came to shove, it turns out nobody really cared about the Turing test and immediately found excuses to discount it as soon as machines blew through that goalpost. It's fundamentally theological, but the thing is, it doesn't matter. It has no impact on what the machines can demonstrably do.
Marha01 8mo ago
Well said. That's exactly what has been rubbing me the wrong way with all those "LLMs can never *really* think, ya know" people. Once we pass some level of AI capability (which we perhaps already did?), it essentially turns into an unfalsifiable statement of faith.
kelseyfrog 8mo ago
We've tested this in the small with AI art. When people believe they're viewing human-made art which is later revealed to be AI art, they feel disappointed. The actual content is incidental, the story that supports it is more important than the thing itself. It's the same mechanism behind artisanal food, artist struggles, and luxury goods. It is the metaphysical properties we attach to objects or the frames we use to interpret strips of events. We author all of these and then promptly forget we've done so, instead believing they are simply reality.
- coldtea 8mo ago
  >The actual content is incidental, the story that supports it is more important than the thing itself. The actual content of a work of art is the expression of lived experience. Not its form.
hnfong 8mo ago
There are already people dealing with AI intelligence scientifically. That's what benchmarks do. It's the "it's just a stochastic parrot!" camp that's doing the theological work. (and maybe also those in the Singularity camp...) That said, I do think there's value in having people understand what "Understanding" means, which is kinda a theological (philosophical :D) question. IMHO, in every-day language there's a functional part (that can be tested with benchmarks), and there's a subjective part (i.e. what does it feel like to understand something?). Most people without the appropriate training simply mix up these two things, and together with whatever insecurities they have with AI taking over the world (which IMHO is inevitable to some extent), they just express their strong opinions about it online...