pull down to refresh
41 sats \ 11 replies \ @Rothbardian_fanatic 24 Jan \ parent \ on: What do you think you'll be doing in 10 years? AskSN
LLMs are just statistical aligners of words. Anybody thinking there is intelligence there is loopy, IMHO. They can put sentences and ideas together, but is there any originality to any of it? Maybe only what is put into the training by the human trainers and, so far, it is nicely biased.
The human brain is a neural network. Digital AI is a similar neural network.
Wet-wear vs hard-ware.
Why wouldn't they be "real" intelligence sense they're literally modeled after our own brains?
Humans themselves are just LLM's which take 10-20 years to train up to the point of "intelligence". By training, I mean just living and learning and going to school. New humans don't even start forming full sentences until they're over a year old at least.
reply
You are not taking into consideration other aspects of being human. It is not all circuits and models that make sentience or, if you like, intelligence. There is much more to us than just “wet-ware”. I don’t think that machines will ever have those parts that exist apart from the “wet-ware”.
When you make the argument that A=B and B=C, therefore A=C, you have to make sure that, indeed, A=B and B=C.
reply
reply
The evidence is all around you all the time. The current paradigm is what is blinding you with fetters on your perception. For instance, where is your cutoff for sentience and intelligence? Are cetaceans sentient and intelligent? Are squirrels? Are we?
reply
I meant real, quantitative, non-anecdotal evidence. Currently, we can prove with real evidence that a neural-network can form at least the basics of intelligence. The more neurons in the network, the more intelligent and sentient-like the entity will seem.
Humans are (roughly) at the top of the list of animals for their neuron count:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_animals_by_number_of_neurons
There are a few animals with neuron counts similar to ours, and I believe those animals could do everything a human could do and are every bit as sentient as we are.
In the list I linked, you see elephants are one of the only creatures with a higher neuron count than humans. Most likely, they have the mental capacity to build cars, planes, and eventually travel the stars. However, they lack other important biological features, unrelated to intelligence, that prevent them from doing so. For example, their size and the fact they have no hands.... makes it hard to create agricultural tools, or type on a keyboard.
So, yes, cetaceans and squirrels are sentient and intelligent. But their low neuron count make them less intelligent and less sentient. I believe intelligence and sentience scale exponentially with neuron count. As long as there are at least 2 neurons present, intelligence and sentience exists... albeit not to a significant degree. Modern day AI's have the neuron count of something like a dog probably. Would have to look into it more to compare them.
reply
I have made another post about this subject. It is an article that I would like to refer you to: #864172. this may help with the problem of evidence.
reply
reply
Yep, I continued on that thread.
OK, I understand you! Neuron count makes intelligence and sentience! There is not any quantitative evidence because this is not a quantitative situation, it is qualitative. If you are looking for quantitative, mathematical, numerical, physical evidence, perhaps you are looking in the wrong place. Again, the paradigm blinds.
reply
There's definitely not intelligence there, but it's getting to the point where you can believe that AI will have an understanding of language years from now.
reply
It won’t understand anything, it is just a collection of lines of code. No intelligence, only what the programmer tells it to do, even if the programmer is itself.
reply