Remix clone Hacker News

new | show | ask | jobs Github

	▲	godelski a day ago
		`> Meanwhile humans don't need any data at all` I don't agree with this and I don't think any biologist or neuroscientist would either. 1) Certainly the data I discussed exists. No creature comes out a blank slate. I'll be bold enough to say that this is true even for viruses, even if we don't consider them alive. Automata doesn't mean void of data and I'm not sure why you'd ascribe this to life or humans. 2) humans are processing data from birth (technically before too but that's not necessary for this conversation and I think we all know that's a great way to have an argument and not address our current conversation). This is clearly some active/online/continual/ reinforcement/wherever-word-you-want-to-use learning. It's weird to suggest an either or situation. All evidence points to "both". Looking at different animals even see both but also with different distributions. I think it's easy to over simplify the problem and the average conversation tends to do this. It's clearly a complex with many variables at play. We can't approximate with any reasonable accuracy by ignoring or holding them constant. They're coupled. `> The reward function can't be created by the brain, because it would be circular.` Why not? I'm absolutely certain I can create my own objectives and own metrics. I'm certain my definition of success is different from yours. `> It would be like giving yourself a high, without even needing drugs` Which is entirely possible. Maybe it takes extreme training to do extreme versions but it's also not like chemicals like dopamine are constant. You definitely get a rush by completing goals. People become addicted to things like videogames, high risk activities like sky diving, or even arguing on the internet. Just because there are externally driven or influenced goals doesn't mean internal ones can't exist. Our emotions can be driven both externally and internally. `> Notice something?` You're using too simple of a model. If you use this model then the solution is as easy as giving a robot self preservation (even if we need to wait a few million years). But how would self preservation evolve beyond its initial construction without the ability to metaprocess and refine that goal? So I think this should highlight a major limitation in your belief. As I see it, the only other way is a changing environment that somehow allows continued survival by the constructions and precisely evolves such that the original instructions continue to work. Even with vague instructions that's an unstable equilibrium. I think you'll find there's a million edge cases even if it seems obvious at first. Or read some Asimov ;)