☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆ @ yogthos @lemmy.ml

Posts

9,821

Comments

10,584

Joined

6 yr. ago

Moderating

---

I expect what we will see are tools where the human manages high level implementation, and the agents are used to implement specific functionality that can be easily tested and verified. I can see something along the lines of a scene graph where you focus on the flow of the code, and farm off details of implementation of each step to a tool. As the article notes, these tools can already get over 90% degree accuracy in these scenarios.

When you're commenting on a subject you have no clue about lol.

lmfao Obama vastly expanded the surveillance programs Bush started after 9/11 https://time.com/3909293/edward-snowden-obama-nsa-spying/

You're an ignoramus and you should be ashamed of yourself. End of fucking discussion.

These posts really make the blueAnon contingent of Lemmy come out in full force.

Using the system in reverse seems like an interesting idea. I can't see why that wouldn't work either.

keep on perseverating I guess

Turns out the content matters more than how it's produced. :)

yup, here's the repo for it https://github.com/sizhe-li/neural-jacobian-field

You’re being deeply uncharitable here. I never said redundancy in biological systems is something that is never selected for. I was simply stating that the selection for such redundancy is bound by thermodynamic processes that govern natural selection in the first place.

We're in complete agreement here. Thermodynamics are the fundamental reason anything happens, and life exists within resolving energy gradients. The selection process favors organisms that use energy efficiently. This point is not being debated. What I've been saying here is that that's only part of the picture, and efficient use of energy competes with other factors such as robustness, error recovery, and so on. Living organisms need to be able to survive in a complex and dangerous environment which creates a pressure for redundancy.

Honestly it’s fascinating and outside of this dumb argument you should look into it because it aligns surprisingly well with Marx’s observations about economic development. If you are genuinely interested I’ll share some papers.

I've read a number of papers, and even reference a few here https://theunconductedchorus.com/

However, I'm always interested to read more on the subject. So by all means link the papers you've read.

In all of the cases you’ve referenced so far, the patients have cognitive deficiencies.

Sure, and I'm not arguing that removing large portions of the brain is not going to cause cognitive deficiencies. The point being made is that they're still able to function and retain much of the cognitive ability. It's quite clear that the brain is able to route around the damage and compensate for it in many cases.

The original point we were debating here is what is the size and complexity of a biological neural network that starts exhibiting interesting properties that we would care about implementing in an artificial one. It's clear that is smaller than the entire brain of a healthy human adult.

Corvids have a way higher neural density than the brains of primates. It’s fascinating but it does not back up the idea that much of the brains complexity is redundant.

The total number of neurons and connections is significantly lower than primates, yet they are able to solve problems of similar complexity. In fact, crows exhibit abilities such as transfer learning which chimps do not.

In fact it would suggest the opposite because under a selective pressure to reduce the size of a brain it still seems that complexity must be preserved in order to achieve similar cognitive capacities.

Perhaps you should start by defining what you mean by complexity instead of just throwing the term around. I'm using it to mean the combination of the number of neurons and the connections between them.

Maybe at one time he was. Now he’s just a science fiction author. Also what does having a degree in biology prove?

You continue to attack his credentials, but you have yet to address what he says or what the original study of the patient suggests. You're dismissing the results using an argument from authority here. Clearly, he's qualified to have an opinion on the subject.

I’m not saying the case itself is controversial. However, the assumptions you’ve made and the conclusions you’re trying to draw from such cases is! At least it would be amongst neuroscientists.

Make an actual argument to substantiate your position.

However, that makes it all the more maddening when you go on to spew such ignorance about the human brain and AI.

What ignorance have I spewed regarding human brain and AI. Please quote specific things I said that you're referring to.

You’re missing the point entirely. Biological systems are governed by the laws thermodynamics.

I'm not missing anything. I'm simply explaining to you that the fitness function for living organisms is far more complex than simply striving for efficiency. I understand perfectly well how entropy and thermodynamics work.

The brain has a disproportionately high metabolism relative to other organs in the human body. To argue it’s largely a redundant structure like the kidneys or liver you need real evidence.

There is plenty of real evidence. I've literally provided you evidence of a person with most of their brain missing who has led a normal life. Another obvious example is people who lose half their brain in accidents and can continue to live normal lives with a single hemisphere. More evidence comes from birds like corvids who exhibit high levels of intelligence and problem solving that's comparable to primates. Since they have an additional requirement of being able to fly, there is a selection pressure to optimize the system further. Just because you're completely ignorant on the topic you're attempting to debate here doesn't mean that evidence doesn't exist.

You linked a fucking blog post written by a science fiction author not a peer reviewed scientific paper. And yes I did read it. Is your ego so large that you can’t possible conceive of someone coming to a different conclusion when faced with the same “evidence”?

I linked you a blog post by a biologist discussing a paper. This is a very well known case that's in no way controversial. The fact that you're acting as if it just just further shows that you have no business having this discussion. https://www.cbc.ca/radio/asithappens/as-it-happens-thursday-edition-1.3679117/scientists-research-man-missing-90-of-his-brain-who-leads-a-normal-life-1.3679125

Big “I know you are but what am I” energy. lol

about the level of discourse I've come to expect from you lol

One of the most hilarious things of late has been libs, who see themselves as a paragon of rationality, expose that they're just a different flavor of qAnon.

That's right history starts on February 2022, nothing happened before then. 🤡

Pretty sure a large chunk of Americans think that Russia is still communist.

I love how you can post an article from one of the most rabidly pro Ukrainian publications here and libs will swarm in with downvotes because it doesn't conform to their fantasies.

lol fixed

libs and engaging with reality challenge impossible

They talk about how Israel wants to break up Syria to to keep it weak. Even if Syria doesn't break up into separate states, the sectarian tensions will likely keep it internally divided for the foreseeable future.

My prediction is that the tariffs are a bluff, and not even a credible one at that. We already saw what happened with the tariffs where they were immediately rolled back. It's pretty clear that the US is not in a position to impose the type of economic pressure Trump is threatening.

clearly my journalistic standards are too high for them 🤣

18th package is gonna be the one