|
Splicer posted:When did the mean ol' programmers hurt you have you looked recently at the world in which we live
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2022 00:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 2, 2024 03:49 |
|
|
Everyone worried about AI becoming sentient (or sapient for those dorks out there) when right now it's absolutely insane to even think we've approached that stage. No, what you gotta look for is the pigs they've genetically engineered to communicate in Norse Code. That's not a typo, follow the money.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2022 01:23
|
|
|
The Butcher posted:Outside of the simulation, God chuckles at this comment from behind her space monitor. Oh my god you tedious moron
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2022 01:34
|
|
|
GABA ghoul posted:Self-driving works pretty good on highways nowadays Lol no it does not
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2022 03:26
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1539031248638812160
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2022 05:03
|
|
|
Splicer posted:When did the mean ol' programmers hurt you lol, very, very few programmers can keep their egos in check because they think they are literally the smartest guys in the room.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2022 05:21
|
|
|
The Butcher posted:Outside of the simulation, God chuckles at this comment from behind her space monitor. lol, how are you intelligent enough to operate a computer when you clearly are unable to comprehend biology, biochemistry, computer science AND religion?! holy poo poo, this is a troll right? right? repeat after me: "logic gates (the building blocks of literally every computing device on the planet) are NOT neurons." at all. not even close. tango alpha delta fucked around with this message at 05:29 on Jun 21, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2022 05:25
|
|
|
tango alpha delta posted:lol, how are you intelligent enough to operate a computer when you clearly are unable to comprehend biology, biochemistry, computer science AND religion?! holy poo poo, this is a troll right? right? Well, that was a lighthearted joke post, because I do not actually know the nature of the creator or it's thoughts even if it exists... But it's not that neurons are logic gates in and of themselves. They simply have on or off states and weight and connections, and the ones they connect with do as well. Mash enough of that poo poo together on enough levels and you could do get something analogous to a logic gate I guess, but a neuron is not a logic gate in itself. Emergent phenomena and blah blah blah. "Do I need to go poo right now or not?" And then the decision tree that follows from that. The functions are not the same but we can clearly make a pretty good analogy.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2022 05:43
|
|
|
It's great you guys know so much about the future and how technology will progress that you can definitively declare any sort of technological advancement to be "impossible" but instead of arguing on forums would you mind using your amazing speculative powers to get me some winning powerball numbers?
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2022 05:48
|
|
|
The Butcher posted:Well, that was a lighthearted joke post, because I do not actually know the nature of the creator or it's thoughts even if it exists... lol, according to your faulty logic we are already there; Apples M1 Ultra has more transistors than the human brain has neurons. e:if i want to completely gently caress up my neurotransmitters, artificial sweeteners seem to do the trick quite well. it's really loving annoying. tango alpha delta fucked around with this message at 06:11 on Jun 21, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2022 05:58
|
|
|
tango alpha delta posted:lol, according to your faulty logic we are already there; Apples M1 Ultra has more transistors than the human brain has neurons. You are still not fully getting it. It's not 1 neuron = 1 transistor. To put in computer toucher terms for you, it's different base hardware but the analogues at what you would call the software layer are pretty drat similar, yet different in their own way. And the reason that they are similar is we have shaped how computers "think" on the lower level after how WE make choices. AND OR etc. We made them in our own image, as it were. An alien might make a completely different base set if their brains or brain analogues communicated via poofing pheromones at each other or whatever weird poo poo. And that's not "thinking" thinking, it's just the next layer of building on poo poo like language and whatnot, which is where we and how we form this functional and cool illusion of a continual self gets really interesting.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2022 06:38
|
|
|
Can we talk to trees yet? Could I use Wireless Internet and have a chat with a big beautiful old tree?
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2022 06:52
|
|
|
Pitdragon posted:It's great you guys know so much about the future and how technology will progress that you can definitively declare any sort of technological advancement to be "impossible" but instead of arguing on forums would you mind using your amazing speculative powers to get me some winning powerball numbers? 3, 3, 3, 3, 3, 4, 19. I have no idea which ones go to which draws tho, you gotta figure that one out yourself.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2022 06:59
|
|
|
FunkyAl posted:Can we talk to trees yet? Could I use Wireless Internet and have a chat with a big beautiful old tree? No. I've sort of tried it when really hosed up on drugs. I guess if you want to call it "language" of trees is so totally slower and different than our own it is hella incompatible and not really a bridge we can gap I think. All we can really do is observe and take note of their health, and try to take care of them. Trees might sort of "talk" to each other but that's wildly different then trying to do sign language with a monkey or whatever.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2022 07:34
|
|
|
tango alpha delta posted:lol, how are you intelligent enough to operate a computer when you clearly are unable to comprehend biology, biochemistry, computer science AND religion?! holy poo poo, this is a troll right? right? A man who knows literally nothing about AI research, computers or neuroscience arrogantly explains to a crowd what AI can't do. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2022 08:12
|
|
|
tango alpha delta posted:lol, according to your faulty logic we are already there; Apples M1 Ultra has more transistors than the human brain has neurons.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2022 08:51
|
|
|
GABA ghoul posted: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. Actually that is precisely the thing he is not aware of. He's also not a senior AI researcher, his own LinkedIn lists his position as Senior Software Engineer which is very different. putin is a cunt fucked around with this message at 09:18 on Jun 21, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2022 09:15
|
|
|
Hey tango alpha delta, the discussion is interesting, but please calm down a bit. Tia~
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2022 09:21
|
|
|
GABA ghoul posted:A man who knows literally nothing about AI research, computers or neuroscience arrogantly explains to a crowd what AI can't do. Dall-Owned lmao
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2022 09:33
|
|
|
FunkyAl posted:Can we talk to trees yet? Could I use Wireless Internet and have a chat with a big beautiful old tree? no but you could traverse the hell out of it in O(nlog) time
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2022 10:02
|
|
|
Klyith posted: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. It is doubtlessly possible to create intelligent algorithms and systems (and the current hype of ANNs to the detriment of other research avenues may well turn out to be a stumbling block). The question is whether those algorithms could be sentient, have subjective experience and an inner life. It's a hell of a claim this could be built out of "really many" transistors which individually have zero of those qualities, or an abstract concept such as a mathematical algorithm that doesn't even physically exist. The brain on the other hand is from the ground up composed of tiny units that each individually have some limited form of awareness. Multiplying that "more than zero" a billion times, each unit communicating with others as a larger whole, is a far less mysterious way that higher forms of awareness could be effected, or at least it is no more mysterious than other alternatives. For those who still think neurons are binary, consider there are also hundreds of neurotransmitters that they use for other modes of communication than purely electric, as well as sending out RNA packets to other neurons for who knows what purpose. They even have the ability to pack up their poo poo and literally move somewhere else.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2022 10:08
|
|
|
Thanks, I was trying to say the same thing, but got a little combatant.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2022 10:13
|
|
|
Mooey Cow posted:It is doubtlessly possible to create intelligent algorithms and systems (and the current hype of ANNs to the detriment of other research avenues may well turn out to be a stumbling block). The question is whether those algorithms could be sentient, have subjective experience and an inner life. It's a hell of a claim this could be built out of "really many" transistors which individually have zero of those qualities, or an abstract concept such as a mathematical algorithm that doesn't even physically exist. The brain on the other hand is from the ground up composed of tiny units that each individually have some limited form of awareness. Multiplying that "more than zero" a billion times, each unit communicating with others as a larger whole, is a far less mysterious way that higher forms of awareness could be effected, or at least it is no more mysterious than other alternatives. That's just borderline mysticism. Everything is made of the same matter and human brain cells are just extremely complicated chemical machines, fundamentally no different from a backhoe. There is no reason to assume that all their functionalities can't be modeled in other ways. It's like saying fluid dynamics models can never produce accurate results because there is no actual water in the computer.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2022 10:23
|
|
|
GABA ghoul posted:That's just borderline mysticism. Everything is made of the same matter and human brain cells are just extremely complicated chemical machines, fundamentally no different from a backhoe. There is no reason to assume that all their functionalities can't be modeled in other ways. Computers are excellent at modelling complex systems if they are given the correct information. We have a very good understanding of how fluids work in the real world, so we can teach computers how to simulate them. However, our brains are still largely a mystery. Perhaps someday we will be able to simulate a human brain, but it won’t be with transistors.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2022 10:29
|
|
|
tango alpha delta posted:However, our brains are still largely a mystery. Perhaps someday we will be able to simulate a human brain, but it won’t be with transistors. This is an issue with science communication. When researchers say we don't understand how the human brain works they mean that the anatomy of the human brain is ridiculously complex and we are in the very earlier stages of actually understanding how all the higher level mechanisms work together to produce the extremely complex behavior. Our research tools are very primitive and we are nibbling around the edges, figuring out how stuff like temporal/spatial memory or the visual cortex work in isolation. What they don't mean is that there is some mystery about the underlying basics of how it all works. A car mechanic from the 50s will not immediately understand in detail how a modern injection engine works, but he will not be confused about the underlying physics and mechanism of it and start praying to it like a god. We were already able to perfectly model the nerve systems of simple organisms decades ago with pen and paper and model complex behaviors like learning. There was no magical point in evolution where nerve systems just transcended and became something different than they are in a snail. It's the same stuff, just ridiculously more complex in an ape. Also, I'm not sure why you are so hung up on transistor or what that has to do with anything. Even if you believe an abstract model of a neuron isn't possible in software, you do understand that a computer is capable of running a mulecular dynamics simulation, right?
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2022 10:53
|
|
|
I'm sorry but I can't stop picturing you guys arguing while dressed up like batman villains and it's killing me
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2022 11:04
|
|
|
tango alpha delta posted:Computers are excellent at modelling complex systems if they are given the correct information. We have a very good understanding of how fluids work in the real world, so we can teach computers how to simulate them. However, our brains are still largely a mystery. Perhaps someday we will be able to simulate a human brain, but it won’t be with transistors. Are you saying that it is impossible to simulate a human brain in a software environment that is running in a hardware environment that uses transistors for its calculations? That's a bold claim and I'd like to hear your thoughts on why. Are your saying that if we did do this it would at best be a p-zombie lacking "actual" consciousness? That's an interesting and very complex question with very complex and nuanced follow ups! E: and all but possibly the last are tangential to the question of whether we can create a conscious intelligence without slavishly following the human brain pattern. Splicer fucked around with this message at 11:27 on Jun 21, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2022 11:19
|
|
|
GABA ghoul posted:That's just borderline mysticism. Everything is made of the same matter and human brain cells are just extremely complicated chemical machines, fundamentally no different from a backhoe. There is no reason to assume that all their functionalities can't be modeled in other ways. That is a claim, not a statement of fact. It might be just as accurate as saying "a cell is just like a city", or a factory, or that an organism is like a society and vice versa. The idea that organisms are machines started around when clockworks were the coolest technology of the day. The idea that "well maybe brains are computers" started when computers became the latest most advanced thing people could conceive of. Who knows what metaphors will be used in the future to describe systems that are fundamentally self-organizing all the way down. So let's say you do manage to accurately model a city as a black box that has trucks of resources going into and out of it, maybe it to the accuracy you can measure corresponds 100% to the movements of trucks to and from some real city. It seems there would be no reason to conclude from this that you have also managed to model the inner lives of the people living in that real city. That would be pure mysticism. The question then is, at what point does the map become the territory?
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2022 12:06
|
|
|
The human brain is like a big truck
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2022 12:26
|
|
|
Mooey Cow posted:So let's say you do manage to accurately model a city as a black box that has trucks of resources going into and out of it, maybe it to the accuracy you can measure corresponds 100% to the movements of trucks to and from some real city. It seems there would be no reason to conclude from this that you have also managed to model the inner lives of the people living in that real city. That would be pure mysticism. The question then is, at what point does the map become the territory? In your example, if the only way for two cities to interact is through trucks and you have an accurate model for trucks going in and out then the inner workings of the city don't matter. Your model is accurate so every aspect that affects trucks will already be accounted for and everything else is superfluous and has been rightly left out. If you say that an accurate model of a neuron will be just as complex as the neuron itself then that's a pretty extraordinary claim. Saying that no aspect of it can be abstracted away, that you have to simulate every detail of it down to the molecular and quantum mechanical level. That's not supported by what we know about biology, biochemistry and physics. Most of the a nerve cell is support machinery for just keeping it alive and doesn't affected how it interacts with the other cells(or at least not in a way that can't be accurately modeled in a much simpler/abstracted way). Whether a human brain in software experience existence/consciousness the same way a biological brain is a good question, but a different one. That's all philosophical ~hard problem of consciousness stuff~/Chinese room stuff. But I don't think most people would dispute that a Chinese room can be as intelligent as a human.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2022 13:36
|
|
|
Pitdragon posted:It's great you guys know so much about the future and how technology will progress that you can definitively declare any sort of technological advancement to be "impossible" but instead of arguing on forums would you mind using your amazing speculative powers to get me some winning powerball numbers? "This chat bot isn't sentient" =/= "AI is 100% impossible and always will be." Y'all gotta stop taking people's skepticism of this specific chat bot and twisting it into an extreme position no one is taking TIA
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2022 13:52
|
|
|
Powerful Katrinka posted:"This chat bot isn't sentient" =/= "AI is 100% impossible and always will be." Y'all gotta stop taking people's skepticism of this specific chat bot and twisting it into an extreme position no one is taking TIA
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2022 14:18
|
|
|
Splicer posted:There are people in this thread saying exactly what Pitdragon is arguing against, is the thing. Yeah, and doing it while dressed like this 
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2022 14:51
|
|
|
why submit anything for peer review when you can just do this
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2022 16:16
|
|
|
FunkyAl posted:Can we talk to trees yet? Could I use Yes.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2022 16:21
|
|
|
ask this AI to review a new book the day it comes out and see if it can still write a copied-from-wikipedia high school essay about the themes
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2022 16:22
|
|
|
Mooey Cow posted:It is doubtlessly possible to create intelligent algorithms and systems (and the current hype of ANNs to the detriment of other research avenues may well turn out to be a stumbling block). The question is whether those algorithms could be sentient, have subjective experience and an inner life. It's a hell of a claim this could be built out of "really many" transistors which individually have zero of those qualities, or an abstract concept such as a mathematical algorithm that doesn't even physically exist. The brain on the other hand is from the ground up composed of tiny units that each individually have some limited form of awareness. Multiplying that "more than zero" a billion times, each unit communicating with others as a larger whole, is a far less mysterious way that higher forms of awareness could be effected, or at least it is no more mysterious than other alternatives. Can you make an intelligent brain out of molecules? Molecules aren't very complex, they certainly aren't aware of anything, they have no subjective experience or inner life. Oh, you can? Cool. Transistors are more complicated and aware than molecules, case closed. Does an intelligent brain operate according to the principles of physics? Physics is the mathematical model of our universe, and everything that we have ever found in the universe is accessible via math. Oh, it does? Cool. Algorithms are just math. No more or less complicated than physics. Case closed.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2022 16:54
|
|
|
tango alpha delta posted:Thanks, I was trying to say the same thing, but got a little combatant. You seemed more flippant in a way that was inoffensive to me, and it felt like if your detractors agreed with you in principle they'd have left you alone 🤷♀️
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2022 17:09
|
|
|
Not even a 100% accurate fluid simulation of water will make your computer wet inside, nor will scribblings on a paper fly in space when you solve some differential equations related to celestial mechanics. What reason is there then to suppose a priori, or even apparently to find it blindlingly obvious, that consciousness and subjective experience will emerge out of an algorithm and somehow reach out of it? Seems like quite an extraordinary claim, that this or that particular model is the same thing as reality.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2022 17:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 2, 2024 03:49 |
|
|
I'm open to different forms of life happening differently from me Earth is one planet among...trillions? It seems narrow minded to assume you can't have sentient thought take place in a vastly different form factor, including these types We know too little and learn too much for me to put some kind of stamp on what sentience is based on humanity alone, which rarely has ever acknowledged or respected sentience and sovereignty of its own species
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2022 17:31
|
|