randomImmigrant

8 ms·

61.
by randomImmigrant 1mo ago
>"Biological," too, is well defined. It relates to living things and their processes. And biological clearly exceeds the definition of “machine”. So once again, what the hell does “just a biological machine” mean? > Evolutio
62.
by randomImmigrant 2mo ago
I had an odd sense when reading that article… the sense that we’re in truly bizarre times, that such obvious advice needs to be given at all. That people in general don’t read, I get. But if you don’t read, why would you want to write? Baff
63.
by randomImmigrant 2mo ago
And biological machine is? Don’t get me wrong. Biology I is full of molecules that we call machines. But you’re making a broader claim, saying that biology is only this. This needs you to answer some questions: 1. Why do the machine parts i
64.
by randomImmigrant 2mo ago
LLMs produce language. And you're right, if we restricted claims to that, no one would object. It might even be scientifically accurate, shock of shocks. If you claim LLMs produce thought, it's equivalent to claiming light bulbs u
65.
by randomImmigrant 2mo ago
Odd. Why don't the details of how consciousness arises in one system inform your judgment of whether it can exist in a different system that only has partial structural overlap? Seems wildly convenient. Where else in science can you s
66.
by randomImmigrant 2mo ago
Please define "simply biological machines". I'm not sure "biological machine" had a proper definition. What's machine like about biology exactly?
67.
by randomImmigrant 2mo ago
How much is the process of a human child in grade school working through a 3-digit x 3-digit multiplication problem (123 * 456) like a GRPO model with thinking tokens doing the same? Very little, if you bother to give the biology of the chi
68.
by randomImmigrant 2mo ago
Yes we can say it has conscious experience. The content and depth of it, we cannot yet fully grok, and of course, what it feels like from inside the ant is something we never will know.
69.
by randomImmigrant 2mo ago
Well this requires you to buy the very bullshit argument that comparisons of two physically distinct systems just because they share outputs is meaningful. If I call a lightbulb an artificial star, the onus is on me to show the behavior und
70.
by randomImmigrant 2mo ago
Because the real thinking still cost the other human the same-ish energy it costs you to put words together, and because after all, the source is a human and not a machine, no, this is very different. Being mislead may be the shared outco
71.
by randomImmigrant 2mo ago
We do have entry and exit conditions. We can disrupt it and study the dynamics of the disruption. We have a good sense of the many mechanisms at play that undergird it. What we lack is a full map of the exact process from sensation to consc
72.
by randomImmigrant 2mo ago
We know quite a lot about consciousness. You may not, but we know enough to know the informational dynamics in a brain are vastly different from an LLMs. Exactly what kind of certainty are you looking for? Happy to provide it at a molecular
73.
by randomImmigrant 2mo ago
“ Usually, it goes the other way around: an LLM sceptic says "LLMs are dumb because they can't do X" and soon someone has to remind them that also most of the population can't, in fact, do X.” And it should not go this w
74.
by randomImmigrant 2mo ago
“ This makes the output extremely like human thinking when solving a problem.” This sounds a little like someone saying a lightbulbs output is extremely like the output of stellar fusion. In one sense, yes. Bulbs are in fact designed to tak
75.
by randomImmigrant 2mo ago
Yes, you should have. While I can understand that not all high school biology teachers will drag you by the nose and make you see the wonder of biology, and textbooks are often awful, I’m confused why this means the author couldn’t go read
76.
by randomImmigrant 2mo ago
Cool. Believe away. But even in that belief, this is a lower order simulation than life, no? Or are we now supposed to buy this fly connectome was made by our simulators using the same tech that runs us?
77.
by randomImmigrant 2mo ago
Yes. Because it’s a simulation of a living thing. It’s still electrons moving around silicon. It deserves the respect your MacBook does. Which is not nothing. But certainly not what’s due to a life.
78.
by randomImmigrant 2mo ago
This seems a fine tradeoff to me, depending on the context. There are datasets and operations on them where speed being sacrificed for privacy/security seems appropriate. Ideally, give me a dial, to ask for encrypted intelligence when
79.
by randomImmigrant 2mo ago
Where did I assign intent? The brain is good at tracking the physics and chemistry of the world not because it was designed to, but because being able to is an evolutionary advantage. I’m not clear why that needs intent. Good fortune throug
80.
by randomImmigrant 2mo ago
I have tried making the case before that LLM "agency" is a complete hoax. Let me try it again. Would appreciate thoughts from folks at HN: Biological neurons have one property that was unknown till the late 90s/2000s: each ne
81.
by randomImmigrant 2mo ago
It is good to see the real game being clarified, and openly admitted to. Nothing about this technology makes it special. What’s allowing for such conversations is entirely traceable to unsupported claims made by the very companies now looki
82.
by randomImmigrant 2mo ago
>How long can a cell survive without liquid water? Depends on the cell, but it’s not instant death. By definition, a cell is a membrane with some water inside it. Sure, move that cell to totally dry conditions and most will die. But not
83.
by randomImmigrant 2mo ago
I believe there’s a reasonable explanation for this effectiveness: mathematics is created by brains. Brains have evolved to track and entrain to various physical phenomena, and the internal dynamics of the brain resonate with the dynamics o
84.
by randomImmigrant 2mo ago
Presence of metallic catalysts is just an environmental factor. No, it isn’t quite that. For it to count as “environment” the organism must be able to survive for at least a time without it. The issue here is, the metal wasn’t a nutrient. T
85.
by randomImmigrant 2mo ago
There could be deep subsurface microbes that are exposed to both pure metal and anoxic conditions that are similar, but note, it’s not “metal or protein” for catalysis. Many protein catalysts have metals incorporated. What proto life did, i
86.
by randomImmigrant 2mo ago
No it’s not that simple. We don’t fall dead the moment we don’t get vitamin D. We can stay alive long enough to get more. That wouldn’t have been the case in these early beings, that were simply not capable of doing anything without these m
87.
by randomImmigrant 2mo ago
Hardly. There are nucleic and amino acids pretty much in every star system, we now know. But not during the big bang. Theres a lot of intermediate stages before stars are young enough to have the mix of chemicals to give rise to these precu
88.
by randomImmigrant 2mo ago
The difference is more on survival. A closed loop metabolism is indeed a good boundary marker. Viruses would fail this. But many have “closed but for a few critical dependencies”, and the argument here is that when life depended on metals l
89.
by randomImmigrant 2mo ago
The ingredients and building blocks aren’t there in the same way. Because life formed, those early ingredients are now transformed, as is the environment. This blocks new life of the type that formed 4 billion years ago from forming again.
90.
by randomImmigrant 2mo ago
No, because conditions have changed markedly. For metals to act as catalysts, and replace some metabolic enzymes, they need to be in highly reduced conditions. This was true in early Earth, but about 2.5 billion years ago, we had the great

More ›