5 ms·

> but being able to generate probabilistic outputs based on inputs is not what makes us intelligent. ??? Of course it is. The brain is mechanically not capabl

> but being able to generate probabilistic outputs based on inputs is not what makes us intelligent. ??? Of course it is. The brain is mechanically not capable of doing anything other than that. Do you believe the brain is something other than a bundle of probabilistic physical interactions? Or are brains not the source of what we call intelligence?

nullsanity 3mo ago
[dead]
pessimizer 3mo ago
Yours is a controversial view. It is lazy and selfish to try to get other people to explain their case that it is not exclusively that, when saying that it is exclusively that is the weaker case, and you back it up with nothing but a snarky proclamation. Are newly born babies reacting due to statistical probabilities that they have derived, or are they using something other than their brains?
- estearum 3mo ago
  > Are newly born babies reacting due to statistical probabilities that they have derived, or are they using something other than their brains? The answer is obviously yes lol. The creature is an assemblage of electrical, chemical, and kinetic relationships. Watching a baby develop is exactly what you'd expect from a system that's predominantly electrical noise triggering behaviors and then gradually refining denoising the relationship between inputs and outputs, with the goal function of achieving more desirable inputs. Surely you can at least gesture toward one thing in the brain that appears not to be a probabilistic relationship between input and output?
beepbooptheory 3mo ago
Why is the brain probabilistic instead of deterministic?
- estearum 3mo ago
  Probabilistic and deterministic are not opposites. The brain is deterministic at the level of specific interactions, which process inputs in a highly chaotic (but still deterministic) manner into probabilistic outcomes. The opposite of deterministic is random, i.e. in the quantum sense of truly no relationship between input and output. There are probably some quantum effects in the brain here and there, but the vast majority of it is just traditional deterministic interactions networked together in such a complex system that the resulting behavior is much, much easier to predict in probabilistic terms than otherwise.
  - beepbooptheory 3mo ago
    Ok right, but then I don't see the original point. Or like, you don't seem to be appealing to a hard science/soft science distinction here if the question revolves around what conceptual model is most "useful" to us. Useful for what? For predicting future actions? That makes sense, but does actually that speak to op's (possibly still fraught) metaphysical/semantic point here? It just feels like you are speaking over it, right? They could just as easily counter that a probabilistic model of the physical brain is not a very useful description of human intelligence, so why use it? You can't appeal to materialism here because you are already practicing some implied pragmatism in your commitments. You pretty much have as much ground to stand on as they do!
    - estearum 3mo ago
      I am saying that there is no categorical distinction to be made on functional grounds between artificial intelligence and brains. You cannot say an AI model cannot be intelligent because it's a probability machine, when all available evidence points toward natural intelligence also being generated by probability machines (much more complex ones, called brains).
      - Jensson 3mo ago
        But brains do much more than just predict tokens based on previously seen tokens. I think all the other things brains do are probably important for our intelligence. So, LLM are just next token predictors, brains are next token predictors + many other things in addition, and that makes people still feel LLM are dumb even when they solve a lot of problems using tokens.
tadfisher 3mo ago
This deserves about as large of a "[citation needed]" as one could draw. Are you well-studied in neuroscience?
- estearum 3mo ago
  Nothing in the universe is anything other than a chain of reactions, amigo. The brain is an object in the universe. The universe has quantum behaviors (fully random, not a source of intelligence) and it has deterministic behaviors (fully non-random). Many of those deterministic behaviors are so complex that they're easier to analyze and describe as probabilistic, which is where most brain input → output relationships land. Please point to any evidence whatsoever that the brain has some third type of interaction going on that has never been observed anywhere in the entire universe, then we can have a discussion about it.
  - chlorion 3mo ago
    Its baffling to me that people think the brain is somehow "outside" of the universe and somehow "magic" and not tied down by physics just like any other matter is. I don't understand how people come to this conclusion, except in the case of belief in magic or religion (which is belief in magic more or less).
    - estearum 3mo ago
      Yeah, that's ultimately this whole conversation and people just don't have the courage to acknowledge their own beliefs. The brain is a (very complex, incredible) input → output machine. That's it! It's incredible! I don't understand why people are so afraid of this that they will believe otherwise with literally zero evidence whatsoever.
polotics 3mo ago
May I suggest the excellent & recent book: "The brain. In theory" by Romain Brette? This is going to elevate your thinking on this no end, if you're interested.
- estearum 3mo ago
  Looks interesting (added to my list, thank you for the recommendation), but not actually relevant to the topic at hand. We know that the brain is a probabilistic input → output machine because the universe is a probabilistic input → output machine. The brain is made of universe. There are deterministic relationships (which at high sensitivity or complexity become easier to describe as probabilistic), and quantum relationships. That's it. The brain, like every other thing comprised of "universe" is comprised of those two types of relationships. If Romain's book provides evidence of relationships in the brain that are neither quantum (therefore random) NOR classical (therefore deterministic), then 1) he would have already won at least one Nobel prize, and 2) anyone in this thread would be able to at least gesture toward what relationship that is.
  - polotics 3mo ago
    You're a fast reader :-D No quantum bullshittery in there I promise. Equating "classical" with "deterministic" is however pushing it a bit too far, when no one and nothing can ever do even a very small fraction of said determination...
    - estearum 3mo ago
      Quantum is not bullshit and yes, classical is deterministic. That's why the brain cannot possibly be anything other than an input → output machine, which is functionally deterministic (with maybe some fully random components), but is easiest to describe as probabilistic. In the same way that LLMs are functionally deterministic, but easiest to describe as probabilistic.
  - thesmtsolver2 3mo ago
    This is a vacuous argument. If everything is a “probabilistic input output machine” then what exactly are you claiming? You should look into mathematical definitions of probability. You will be surprised to find not all formal mathematical systems can fit inside probability spaces.
noncoml 3mo ago
We don’t know
- estearum 3mo ago
  Of course we do. Unless the brain is an object unlike anything else in the known universe, then it's an input → output machine.
  - noncoml 3mo ago
    Not what what the parent post claimed.
    - estearum 3mo ago
      The brain is the source of intelligence The brain solely does probabilistic conversion of inputs to outputs Therefore the thing that makes us intelligent is our probabilistic conversion of inputs to outputs Ergo GP's assertion is wrong

nullsanity 3mo ago

[dead]

pessimizer 3mo ago

Yours is a controversial view. It is lazy and selfish to try to get other people to explain their case that it is not exclusively that, when saying that it is exclusively that is the weaker case, and you back it up with nothing but a snarky proclamation. Are newly born babies reacting due to statistical probabilities that they have derived, or are they using something other than their brains?

estearum 3mo ago
> Are newly born babies reacting due to statistical probabilities that they have derived, or are they using something other than their brains? The answer is obviously yes lol. The creature is an assemblage of electrical, chemical, and kinetic relationships. Watching a baby develop is exactly what you'd expect from a system that's predominantly electrical noise triggering behaviors and then gradually refining denoising the relationship between inputs and outputs, with the goal function of achieving more desirable inputs. Surely you can at least gesture toward one thing in the brain that appears not to be a probabilistic relationship between input and output?

beepbooptheory 3mo ago

Why is the brain probabilistic instead of deterministic?

estearum 3mo ago
Probabilistic and deterministic are not opposites. The brain is deterministic at the level of specific interactions, which process inputs in a highly chaotic (but still deterministic) manner into probabilistic outcomes. The opposite of deterministic is random, i.e. in the quantum sense of truly no relationship between input and output. There are probably some quantum effects in the brain here and there, but the vast majority of it is just traditional deterministic interactions networked together in such a complex system that the resulting behavior is much, much easier to predict in probabilistic terms than otherwise.
- beepbooptheory 3mo ago
  Ok right, but then I don't see the original point. Or like, you don't seem to be appealing to a hard science/soft science distinction here if the question revolves around what conceptual model is most "useful" to us. Useful for what? For predicting future actions? That makes sense, but does actually that speak to op's (possibly still fraught) metaphysical/semantic point here? It just feels like you are speaking over it, right? They could just as easily counter that a probabilistic model of the physical brain is not a very useful description of human intelligence, so why use it? You can't appeal to materialism here because you are already practicing some implied pragmatism in your commitments. You pretty much have as much ground to stand on as they do!
  - estearum 3mo ago
    I am saying that there is no categorical distinction to be made on functional grounds between artificial intelligence and brains. You cannot say an AI model cannot be intelligent because it's a probability machine, when all available evidence points toward natural intelligence also being generated by probability machines (much more complex ones, called brains).
    - Jensson 3mo ago
      But brains do much more than just predict tokens based on previously seen tokens. I think all the other things brains do are probably important for our intelligence. So, LLM are just next token predictors, brains are next token predictors + many other things in addition, and that makes people still feel LLM are dumb even when they solve a lot of problems using tokens.

tadfisher 3mo ago

This deserves about as large of a "[citation needed]" as one could draw. Are you well-studied in neuroscience?

estearum 3mo ago
Nothing in the universe is anything other than a chain of reactions, amigo. The brain is an object in the universe. The universe has quantum behaviors (fully random, not a source of intelligence) and it has deterministic behaviors (fully non-random). Many of those deterministic behaviors are so complex that they're easier to analyze and describe as probabilistic, which is where most brain input → output relationships land. Please point to any evidence whatsoever that the brain has some third type of interaction going on that has never been observed anywhere in the entire universe, then we can have a discussion about it.
- chlorion 3mo ago
  Its baffling to me that people think the brain is somehow "outside" of the universe and somehow "magic" and not tied down by physics just like any other matter is. I don't understand how people come to this conclusion, except in the case of belief in magic or religion (which is belief in magic more or less).
  - estearum 3mo ago
    Yeah, that's ultimately this whole conversation and people just don't have the courage to acknowledge their own beliefs. The brain is a (very complex, incredible) input → output machine. That's it! It's incredible! I don't understand why people are so afraid of this that they will believe otherwise with literally zero evidence whatsoever.

polotics 3mo ago

May I suggest the excellent & recent book: "The brain. In theory" by Romain Brette? This is going to elevate your thinking on this no end, if you're interested.

estearum 3mo ago
Looks interesting (added to my list, thank you for the recommendation), but not actually relevant to the topic at hand. We know that the brain is a probabilistic input → output machine because the universe is a probabilistic input → output machine. The brain is made of universe. There are deterministic relationships (which at high sensitivity or complexity become easier to describe as probabilistic), and quantum relationships. That's it. The brain, like every other thing comprised of "universe" is comprised of those two types of relationships. If Romain's book provides evidence of relationships in the brain that are neither quantum (therefore random) NOR classical (therefore deterministic), then 1) he would have already won at least one Nobel prize, and 2) anyone in this thread would be able to at least gesture toward what relationship that is.
- polotics 3mo ago
  You're a fast reader :-D No quantum bullshittery in there I promise. Equating "classical" with "deterministic" is however pushing it a bit too far, when no one and nothing can ever do even a very small fraction of said determination...
  - estearum 3mo ago
    Quantum is not bullshit and yes, classical is deterministic. That's why the brain cannot possibly be anything other than an input → output machine, which is functionally deterministic (with maybe some fully random components), but is easiest to describe as probabilistic. In the same way that LLMs are functionally deterministic, but easiest to describe as probabilistic.
- thesmtsolver2 3mo ago
  This is a vacuous argument. If everything is a “probabilistic input output machine” then what exactly are you claiming? You should look into mathematical definitions of probability. You will be surprised to find not all formal mathematical systems can fit inside probability spaces.

noncoml 3mo ago

We don’t know

estearum 3mo ago
Of course we do. Unless the brain is an object unlike anything else in the known universe, then it's an input → output machine.
- noncoml 3mo ago
  Not what what the parent post claimed.
  - estearum 3mo ago
    The brain is the source of intelligence The brain solely does probabilistic conversion of inputs to outputs Therefore the thing that makes us intelligent is our probabilistic conversion of inputs to outputs Ergo GP's assertion is wrong