| |
| ▲ | doctoboggan 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | At this point, I think anthropomorphizing the models gives us better insight into expected behaviors rather than continuing to insist they are just simple probabilistic token generators. | | |
| ▲ | mnky9800n 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | How can you be sure it helps as opposed to biases and perhaps blinds? | |
| ▲ | applfanboysbgon 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | It actually literally doesn't, though, because they are literally probabilistic token generators and everything they did is exactly what you would expect from a software program doing what it was programmed to do. Anthromorphization confuses the issue and misleads people who don't understand the tech very well. | | |
| ▲ | dfdxdydz 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Humans mind is just neurotransmitters moving around in a big blob of flesh - that’s literally what they are: neurotransmitters factories that do what neurotransmitters generators are programmed to do through evolution and training (aka life experience). We shouldn’t anthropomorphise humans because it misleads people who don’t understand neurobiology and cognitive science very well. | | |
| ▲ | applfanboysbgon an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | Are you suggesting you understand brains well enough to program one? Or that you believe any human alive is even remotely close to having this understanding? Or perhaps does your complete lack of understanding of the complexity of human programming lead you to believe a simple little token prediction program is equivalently complex? | | |
| ▲ | lukan an hour ago | parent [-] | | The suggestion is, you don't know either whether out brains ain't just "probabilistic token generators" so insisting there is nothing when we don't know, is maybe also not the right strategy. | | |
| ▲ | RandomLensman 26 minutes ago | parent [-] | | Is there any indication from our current understanding that brains are nothing more than probabilistic token generators? Not like we have no understanding of the brain. |
|
| |
| ▲ | RandomLensman 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | We don't anthropomorphise humans. Edit: quite literally not possible. |
| |
| ▲ | ijidak 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Doesn't this ignore the possibility of emergent behavior? We're just a bag of atoms bumping around, and yet we don't dismiss our intelligence. | | |
| ▲ | RandomLensman 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Not the OP, but complex emergent behavior and intelligence don't need to go together. Understanding what happened might not need intelligence in the mix when a large number of machines with some randomness interact a lot. | |
| ▲ | gps372 an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | This is why the theory of us 'just' being a bag of atoms doesn't add up. This theory doesn't differentiate 'us' from a furniture where we easily dismiss it's intelligence. | |
| ▲ | jurgenburgen 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Do you believe ants have consciousness? | | |
| ▲ | danielbln 11 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | Not more than a bunch of neurons have conciousness. But put them together and wire them up just right.. | |
| ▲ | black_knight an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | According to Hofstadter, it is not the ants themselves we should say are conscious, but the anthill. And it might very well befriend the anteater eating its ants. |
| |
| ▲ | applfanboysbgon 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Please give me a break with this tired trope. Every single fucking time. I am not commenting on the possibility of machine consciousness in general. It may be possible! But there is absolutely zero evidence suggesting language models have it. This idea that this trivial shitty little class of programs we've created are somehow as complex as our biology is ridiculous. There is "emergent behaviour" in the same way that the Game of Life has emergent behaviour. There are solutions to problems, some humans haven't solved before, in the same way that Chess engines have solved Chess far beyond what humans are capable of. Nothing we haven't seen from software before. Software is extremely useful, after all. But the hubris to think we've reached the pinnacle, that there is no further development left, that humanity has become God and solved consciousness, because we programmed software that can convincingly generate strings of words that mimick our language. It's just fundamentally preposterous. Especially if you spend any amount of time actually programming them yourself, it becomes increasingly hard to entertain such ridiculous notions unless you're enticed with bags of money to deceive people into believing things about your software that aren't true. |
|
|
|
|
