|
Improbable Lobster posted:there's a bunch of other layers that are definitely not binary though that effect and are effected by neurons. calling the brain a computer is overstating how much we understand about the working of the brain. computers are metaphorically similar to brains but not that close in the literal sense That's where the complexity, layering, weighting, strengthening and weakening come in to generate the useful illusion of self. But still, on the very base layer, it fires or doesn't. Meatbag.
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2022 18:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 19:16 |
|
|
Powerful Katrinka posted:Is BBC a poo poo-post chat AI? yeah Awful Idiot!!!
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2022 18:57
|
|
|
Nooner posted:Free BBC I mean drat I've been called worse things than garrulous
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2022 19:05
|
|
|
Improbable Lobster posted:*that we currently know of there's no reason why, and no reason to suspect a reason why. for example, there's zero evidence that anything QM is happening in individual neurons or anything else in the brain what would be impossible to simulate, despite "quantum" being the favorite refuge for an argument from ignorance. Improbable Lobster posted:**because they are a very complex flowchart in a blackbox it is not practical to find why any particular result came about because the training process uses randomness and so is to an extent non-deterministic. thus finding the explanation for a result is the same complexity as training the ANN in the first place. that's why it's a black box. it is possible to know why. for example, if you made an ANN simulator inside an even larger system that could track all 100 billion parameters, observe their training and associations, and track their use in operation. you could then ask that system why the first ANN decided to have Jerry commit self-immolation. Mooey Cow posted:Turing tests are behaviorist nonsense. There is no reason to think an algorithm that sums up one million exponential functions has more sentience or inner life than a single instance of said function, which you can easily calculate with a pen and paper. ANN : single instance of function :: brain : neuron
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2022 19:07
|
|
|
Deep Glove Bruno posted:Well the Google dude pretty much did. But yeah that's why my rambling thought kind of petered out. What's the point of any Q&A test when you know what it's doing internally and what it's doing is faking. I guess AI is a lot less interesting than it's sold as. The penguin dude is some senior AI researcher at Google, I'm pretty sure he is aware that a machine learning model has no inner life. The question is rather a philosophical one. Is there a difference between a specific signal pattern happening on a biological neural net and a virtual neural net? If a pattern/algorithm concerning self-reflection or emotion happens on a bio NN, we call that sentience or feelings. If the same pattern happens in software we probably wouldn't and it's an interesting questions to think about why. Having said that, lamda is probably nowhere near complex enough to produce the extremely complicated patterns that happen during self-reflective/existential thought so everyone makes fun of the dude. It's a glorified chatbot. Machine learning has some decent amount of commercial applications nowadays. For example, tech companies use image classifiers to filter or pre-filter content. Manufacturing uses it for production data analysis. It's also used in speech recognition with stuff like Alexa or Siri. Self-driving works pretty good on highways nowadays. Trucking insiders say it will very likely be market ready for long haul trucking in the US by ~2030(only on highways, the last mile will still be driven by humans). It basically works 99.99% of the time now, but that's not good enough for a large scale rollout so it's gonna take a couple of years still. The goal is to get it below some threshold of accident per million miles driven and there is continuous progress on that front.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2022 19:17
|
|
|
The AI seems nice 
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2022 19:21
|
|
|
*blood dripping from left ear but in a chill way* haha it's sapience but no really it's fine *other ear starts bleeding even chillishlier*
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2022 19:26
|
|
|
remigious posted:The AI seems nice the AI is BBC... not so nice now, is it?
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2022 19:28
|
|
|
Nooner posted:Free BBC I feel like everyone's losing their loving mind for some reason the past month here and it's not just me BBC is losing it the most though
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2022 19:34
|
|
|
Aesop Poprock posted:I feel like everyone's losing their loving mind for some reason the past month here and it's not just me We were the AIs all along and the google man changed our algos!!!
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2022 19:36
|
|
|
Lol Are we doing that thing where all those nuns started meowing because we're trapped in an echo chamber because if so I'm going to start writing this stuff down
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2022 19:38
|
|
|
Aesop Poprock posted:Are we doing that thing where all those nuns started meowing because we're trapped in an echo chamber I don't know who these catgirl nuns you reference are. But I would like to.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2022 19:40
|
|
|
Klyith posted:ANN : single instance of function :: brain : neuron Artificial "neurons" don't even fire according to the "all or nothing" principle of biological neurons, because if they did the hilariously artificial methods used to "train" them don't work, so instead they use tuned sigmoid functions and each node always contributes a little bit to the next layer. If a brain is binary, then an ANN apparently isn't. Meanwhile even the simplest single-celled organisms possess the ability to sense their environment and react to it, and some can even learn and remember things. Neurons are highly complex organisms living in a highly complex environment, trying to reduce them to a single function, or worse some kind of transistor, is... well let's just say it's far from guaranteed to result in an accurate simulation. One might even say there is no reason to think it would.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2022 19:44
|
|
|
Nooner posted:Free BBC he should endeavor to be more enjoyable to talk to than the AI his posts p much just feel like theyre written by a damp trenchcoat
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2022 19:51
|
|
|
Mooey Cow posted:Artificial "neurons" don't even fire according to the "all or nothing" principle of biological neurons, because if they did the hilariously artificial methods used to "train" them don't work, so instead they use tuned sigmoid functions and each node always contributes a little bit to the next layer. If a brain is binary, then an ANN apparently isn't. What I'm trying to get across is that the proposal that ANNs can't be intelligent because they're built from the sum of simple things is dumb. All life is built from the sums of simple things. Mooey Cow posted:Meanwhile even the simplest single-celled organisms possess the ability to sense their environment and react to it, and some can even learn and remember things. Neurons are highly complex organisms living in a highly complex environment, trying to reduce them to a single function, or worse some kind of transistor, is... well let's just say it's far from guaranteed to result in an accurate simulation. One might even say there is no reason to think it would. How is the ability to have the conversation on page 1 not an example of "sense the environment and react to it"? It's environment is one of pure language, that's the only universe it operates in. Language comes it, it reacts by sending words out. Other ANNs can sense & react to the road around a car, or a go board, or faces or whatever. Like this isn't even a question, on the level of sensing & reacting to the environment an ANN is totally doing it. While they're training they're also self-modifying in response to that stimulus, or what we call "learning".
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2022 19:59
|
|
|
Mooey Cow posted:Turing tests are behaviorist nonsense. There is no reason to think an algorithm that sums up one million exponential functions has more sentience or inner life than a single instance of said function, which you can easily calculate with a pen and paper. if you math hard enough you brain
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2022 20:08
|
|
|
The Butcher posted:That's where the complexity, layering, weighting, strengthening and weakening come in to generate the useful illusion of self. Nope GABA ghoul posted:It basically works 99.99% of the time now, lmao Improbable Lobster fucked around with this message at 20:11 on Jun 20, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2022 20:08
|
|
|
But, yes. Action potential. A neuron fires or it does not. Even if there was a partial firing, which doesn't make sense, that would still essentially be the same outcome as not firing because the signal isn't going onto other ones. https://faculty.washington.edu/chudler/ap.html
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2022 20:40
|
|
|
The Butcher posted:But, yes. Action potential. A neuron fires or it does not. Neurons being off or on doesn't make the brain a computer unless you don't understand brains or computers
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2022 20:47
|
|
|
lol, please stop trying to conflate NAND/OR/NOT/AND gates with neurons, dumbasses.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2022 20:51
|
|
|
tango alpha delta posted:lol, please stop trying to conflate NAND/OR/NOT/AND gates with neurons, dumbasses. You wouldn't feel that way if you had a nand gate, would you?
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2022 20:54
|
|
|
What about XOR, NOR and XNOR gates?
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2022 20:55
|
|
|
Remember back when people used to claim the we'd NEVER have machines that could be "creative"? Now we have dall-e2 and a host of others and the same people are saying it's not "true creativity" since they're just jumbling together things they know, as if that wasn't one of the main bases for human creativity throughout history. Hell, we've proven that there are animals that communicate with each other in complex ways and can even convey complicated ideas to one another, but there are still plenty of people out there that look at any life form that isn't human as little more than an unthinking organic machine that reacts to stimulus. I'm sure even when the AI-Overlords are running on quantum computers and controlling every aspect of our day to day lives at the silicon slave mines there'll be some joker going "Yeah, but it's really just the illusion of sentience! Those AIs are just a bunch of minerals and electricity, nothing more!"
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2022 20:56
|
|
|
Babygirls xor gates
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2022 20:56
|
|
|
The Butcher posted:But, yes. Action potential. A neuron fires or it does not. You Dumb egg head do you see a power cable to your head? A fan? RGB lights? Your not a computa you nerd lol I'm gonna flush your computar head down the bowl if this doesn't stop
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2022 20:59
|
|
|
Pitdragon posted:Remember back when people used to claim the we'd NEVER have machines that could be "creative"? lol, Isaac Asimov covered all of this in the 1940's and 1950's.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2022 20:59
|
|
|
Improbable Lobster posted:Neurons being off or on doesn't make the brain a computer unless you don't understand brains or computers Well, your claim was that individual neurons are not binary, which is wrong. And from understanding that base, we can build the whole rest of the thing up from there. There is nothing inherently special to having the awareness of self on meat or something different. And even if the architecture is different, even wildly different, once you get to similar levels (and we ain't there yet) it just gets down into nitpicking on terminology and poo poo. Just being made of human meat is not the requirement to be considered a person. Gets real fuckin' weird if we start going down that line of thinking.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2022 21:13
|
|
|
Pitdragon posted:Remember back when people used to claim the we'd NEVER have machines that could be "creative"? Yeah, it's gonna be god of the gaps and goal post shifting all the way to full general intelligence(and continue even then)
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2022 21:13
|
|
|
Klyith posted:What I'm trying to get across is that the proposal that ANNs can't be intelligent because they're built from the sum of simple things is dumb. All life is built from the sums of simple things.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2022 21:22
|
|
|
Pitdragon posted:Remember back when people used to claim the we'd NEVER have machines that could be "creative"? tango alpha delta posted:lol, please stop trying to conflate NAND/OR/NOT/AND gates with neurons, dumbasses.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2022 21:43
|
|
|
sounds like a whole lotta virgins posting itt
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2022 21:56
|
|
|
The Butcher posted:Well, your claim was that individual neurons are not binary, which is wrong. Fair enough about the binary but again, computers are not brains, do not emulate brains and we are nowhere near close enough to actually simulate a brain and never will be
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2022 22:16
|
|
|
lol
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2022 22:17
|
|
|
Nooner posted:sounds like a whole lotta virgins posting itt Sounds like someone is jealous
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2022 22:28
|
|
|
Splicer posted:Your coming across as "...and therefore ANNs COULD be intelligent!" though. Yes exactly, COULD be. As in have the possibility, in the future, with more development, and probably lots more computer power. I am not arguing that lambda or Dall-e any other ANN today is sapient or conscious in any way. Far from it. Further, I don't really think the current work on AI, most of which is driven by very commercial purposes to be very good at very specific tasks, is going to produce something I would consider sapient. I'm not betting I will see AGI in my lifetime. IMO the people who are like "it's coming fast, we need to make sure dangerous super-intelligence doesn't kill us!" are getting overhyped on a significant but short-term step forward. Intelligence isn't going to just pop out of the end of a sufficiently big language-model ANN. But the guy I've been replying to seems to take the view that it is IMPOSSIBLE. Because a million simple functions that you could compute by hand can't add up to intelligence or whatever.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2022 22:55
|
|
|
Klyith posted:Yes exactly, COULD be. As in have the possibility, in the future, with more development, and probably lots more computer power. I am not arguing that lambda or Dall-e any other ANN today is sapient or conscious in any way. Far from it. lmao, the old "computer programmers, given enough time, can reduce EVERYTHING to algorithms" argument. Computer programmers are flawed, deeply flawed. Give me a break with this bullshit; there's no loving way they are going to solve the mysteries of life from behind a computer screen.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2022 23:03
|
|
|
tango alpha delta posted:lmao, the old "computer programmers, given enough time, can reduce EVERYTHING to algorithms" argument. Computer programmers are flawed, deeply flawed. Give me a break with this bullshit; there's no loving way they are going to solve the mysteries of life from behind a computer screen.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2022 23:16
|
|
|
Splicer posted:...what? lol, a bunch of monkeys with typewriters, given enough time, will write Othello or The Tempest long before a computer programmer creates life as complex as the human brain.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2022 23:20
|
|
|
tango alpha delta posted:lol, a bunch of monkeys with typewriters, given enough time, will write Othello or The Tempest long before a computer programmer creates life as complex as the human brain.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2022 23:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 19:16 |
|
|
tango alpha delta posted:Give me a break with this bullshit; there's no loving way they are going to solve the mysteries of life from behind a computer screen. Outside of the simulation, God chuckles at this comment from behind her space monitor. "Heh, that took a bit, but I finally got them to say it. Getting kind of bored with this run though, maybe I can get them to nuke themselves?"
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2022 23:35
|
|