When you watch it solve complex problems and use the browser and do internet searches, and use the entire surface area of the console tools on a linux box every day the idea that there are no major Homomorphisms with biological thinking is just completely out of the question.

I also never understand what the difference between a thinking trick, and "real" thinking is supposed to be.

▲

tsunamifury 10 hours ago | parent [-]

I used to agree with you but overtime I’ve changed my mind.

For reference I created predictive linguistics at Google in the first products and this is a many order scale up of that, with new complexities of course.

The best analogy I can give you is that it is a really advanced synthesis machine, which looks like human thought but is more of a hyper advance “replay” of human thought in various contexts.

Where you begin to see it fail is when it has no awareness of false paths in long walks, less awareness of getting stuck, and of course no unprompted intrinsic motivation.

This of course calls into question human thought being more than the rational mind but a mix of whole body input, biological needs, complex chemical behaviors and stored DNA information playing out after millions of years of evolution to build many different cooperating models of our “consciousnesses” and biological motivations .

Where as an LLM is more of an advance replay of the stored knowledge we bothered to record, synthesized into an execution in code.

It can do the things you’ve quoted because it has many recorded observations of those

Stick it in a robot and see how “smart” it is as everyday tasks. Give it a self oriented task and watch it mirror itself into oblivion.

It’s an advance thought extension system based on our history.

▲

tracerbulletx 9 hours ago | parent [-]

I feel like that's more saying they can't train on the fly, and also that serializing spatial data and world models is something we haven't really done fully.

For me all neural networks synthetic or otherwise are replay machines or stream prediction machines. Nerve signals in, and nerve signals out. If I create output signals to the muscle nerves like this when my eyes see signals like that, good things happen, i get a reward, so it happens again the next time. We have a a more complex messier architecture, but it seems pretty much the same in the input and outputs being linear signals.

	▲	tsunamifury 9 hours ago \| parent [-]
		I’ll Disagree and all I’ll say is when you say messier that hand waving away the differences between an RC car and a real car because they both drive but the real car just has some messier complications. That messier part is the complexity that is the difference. What we have is a model. It’s still very distant from the original in meaningful ways.