☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆ @ yogthos @lemmy.ml

Posts

9,802

Comments

10,568

Joined

6 yr. ago

Moderating

---

Im simply stating that you’re way off base when you claim that they appear to operate using the same principles or that all evidence suggests the human mind is nothing more than a probability machine.

I literally said these things, and you never gave any actual counter argument to either of them.

You’re betraying your own ignorance about neuroscience. The complexity of the brain is absolutely linked with its ability to reason and we have plenty of evidence to show that. The evolutionary process does not just create needless complexity if there is a more efficient path.

You're betraying your ignorance of how biology works and illustrating that you have absolutely no business debating this subject. Efficiency is not the primary fitness function for evolution, it's survivability. And that means having a lot of redundancy baked into the system. Here's a concrete example for you of just how much of the brain isn't actually essential for normal day to day function. https://www.rifters.com/crawl/?p=6116

This is such a silly statement especially when you’ve been claiming that both the brain and AI appear to work using the same principles.

There's nothing silly in stating that the underlying principles are similar, but we don't understand a lot of the mechanics of the brain. If you truly can't understand such basic things there's little point trying to have a meaningful discussion.

I don’t really care about your arguments concerning embodiment because they’re so beside the point when you just blowing right by the most basic principles of neuroscience.

That's literally the whole context for this thread, it just doesn't fit with the straw man you want to argue about.

A ruthless criticism of that exists includes the very researchers whose work you’re taking at face value.

Whose work am I taking at face value specifically? You're just spewing nonsense here without engaging with anything I'm saying.

thank you for gracing us with an example of how a thirteen year old understands the world

I suspect that something like LLMs is part of our toolkit, but I agree that this can't be the whole picture. Ideas like neurosymbolic AI might be on the right track here. The idea here is to leverage LLMs at parsing and classifying noisy input data, which they're good at, then use a symbolic logic engine to operate on the classified data. Something along these lines is much more likely to produce genuine intelligence. We're still in very early stages of both understanding how the brain works and figuring out how to implement artificial reasoning.

O7

LLMs and the human mind operate on categorically different principles.

A bold statement given that we don't actually understand how the brain operates exactly and what algorithms that would translate into.

Where the straw man?

The straw man is you continuing to argue against equating LLMs with the functioning of the brain, something I never said here.

All the verbiage used to describe neural network models has little to do with how the brain actually works.

You appear to be conflating the implementation details of how the brain works with the what it's doing in a semantic sense. There is zero evidence that all the complexity of the brain is inherent to the way our reasoning functions. Again, we don't have a full understanding of how the brain accomplishes tasks like reasoning. It may be a lot more complex than what LLMs do, or it may not be. We do not know.

Finally, none of this has anything to do with the point I was actually making which is regarding embodiment. You decided to ignore that to focus on braying about tech companies and LLMs instead.

the wasp nest has really come out in the comments here 🤣

I actually preferred Inventing Reality from Parenti

Does feddit have screening questions on sign up to make sure people signing up are actual fascist?

^ how to let people know you have mental capacity of a 13 year old

This completely understates the gulf between what we call AI and how the human brain actually works.

Way to completely misrepresent what I was actually saying. Nowhere was I suggesting that there isn't a huge difference between the two. What I pointed out is that, while undeniably more complex, our brains appear to work on similar principles.

My only point was that the feedback loop from embodiment creates the basis for volition, and that what we call intelligence is our ability to create internal models of the world that we use for decision making. So, this is likely a prerequisite for any artificial system that has any meaningful intelligence.

Maybe try engaging with that instead of writing a wall of text arguing with a straw man.

The all-caps delivery really frames your thesis beautifully.

All the evidence suggests that our own minds are also nothing more than probability engines. The reason we consider humans to be intelligent is because our brains learn to model the events in the physical world that are fed into our brains by the nervous system. The whole purpose of a brain is to try and keep the body in a state of homeostasis. That's the basis for our volition. The brain gets data about about the state of the organism, and interprets it as hunger, pain, fear, and so on. Then it uses its internal world model to figure out actions that will put the body into a more desirable state. From this perspective, embodiment would indeed be a necessary component of human style intelligence.

While LLMs on their own are unlikely to provide a sufficient basis for a reasoning system, its not strictly impossible that a model trained on sensory data from a robot body it inhabits wouldn't be able to build a representation of the world and its body that could be used as the basis for decision making and volition.

I thought the game was alright overall, but it certainly did not feel like a Dragon Age game. The overall story was decent, however a lot of the dialogue was hamfisted. The real problem was that the gameplay felt like Jedi Survivor without the refined combat mechanics. As a result, combat quickly became tedious and repetitive. I also found that the NPCs were more or less fungible, and it really didn't matter who was in your party. This is a stark contrast with previous Dragon Age games where the whole fun was in scripting the behavior of different characters and coming up with clever ways of combine their abilities. Simply having kept the original mechanics, warts and all, would've resulted in a far better game in my opinion.

Generative AI is just the tip of the iceberg. For example, Huawei AI targets industry upgrades as opposed to chatbots. This has applications in medicine, robotics, research, hardware design. Letting your biases blind you to what's actually happening with technology leads to myopia.

I'm just pointing out that it makes little sense to talk about how technology will develop in the next 5 years while ignoring the biggest factor that will drive the direction of technological development.

It makes no sense to think about the future of technology while ignoring one of the biggest technological developments to date. Whatever you think of AI, it's necessarily going to shape every aspect of technological development going forward.

One example I can give you off top of my head is that traditional user interfaces will likely be going away. There's no need to have a complex UI the user has to learn to navigate when you can just use language to describe what you want. You will just ask the agent to find whatever information you need, and present it in a specific way to you. Think of it as having a personal secretary who compiles information for you, and makes presentations.

it's one of the most dangerous countries to visit for western sex pests and pedos

you really kicked the wasp nest with this one 🤣

cry ab it

Thank you for taking your valuable time away from huffing gas to share this invaluable insight.