zlacker

>>grader+(OP)
Engineers are always building things that are incredible, then turning their back on it as ordinary once the problem is solved, “oh that’s so normal, it was just a little math, a little tweak, no big deal”.

AI has gone through a lot of stages of “only X can be done by a human”-> “X is done by AI” -> “oh, that’s just some engineering, that’s not really human” or “no longer in the category of mystical things we can’t explain that a human can do”.

LLM is just the latest iteration of, “wow it can do this amazing human only thing X (write a paper indistinguishable from a human)” -> “doh, it’s just some engineering (it’s just a fancy auto complete)”.

Just because AI is a bunch of linear algebra and statistics does not mean the brain isn’t doing something similar. You don’t like terminology, but how is re-enforcement “Learning”, not exactly the same as reading books to a toddler and pointing at a picture and having them repeat what it is?

Start digging into the human with the same engineering view, and suddenly it also just become a bunch of parts. Where is the human in the human once all the human parts are explained like an engineer would. What would be left? The human is computation also, unless you believe in souls or other worldly mysticism. So why not think eventually AI as computation can be equal to human.

Just because Github CoPilot can write bad code, isn't a knock on AI, it's real, a lot of humans write bad code.

>>Frustr+Sf
> The human is computation also, unless you believe in souls or other worldly mysticism.

I think it is incredibly sad that a person can be reduced to believing humans don't have souls. Do something different with yourself so you can discover the miracle of life. If you don't believe there is anything more to people and to the world than mechanical processes, I would challenge you to do a powerful spiritual activity.

>>carlos+Fq
By spiritual practice, do you mean something like studying the Skanda's or the 5 Aggregates? Or do you mean to open myself to the love of our lord and savior? It does make a difference in how you approach the world if your spiritual practice encourages insight, or if you are blinded by faith in a spiritual entity that is directing you.

>>Frustr+cz
A powerful spiritual practice like challenging your own limits and fears to the maximum, or meditation and fasting, or immersing yourself in a completely different environment from what you are familiar with until you know it truly. Or if these things sound too abstract, to take a strong dose of psychedelics alone or with others.

Religious texts are something that can be interesting after sensing some spirituality, but probably not before. I don't think anybody who is not spiritual can become so by reading religious texts.

>>carlos+NU2
It's just that you said I was sad because I don't think their is a soul. Because, I assume, you think that there is some mystical entity that is directing the body that is you, and a spiritual practice would lead to that conclusion. The soul would be some essence that is beyond the physical world, (a being from alternate universe maybe?). But then you speak of meditation and fasting. I would say that meditating has been what lead me here. Meditating, examining, observing ones own mind helps one see that there is no self, thoughts arise on their own. There is no core, non-detectable, mystical soul.

We give our minds too much credit, we keep arguing if AI is, or can ever be, conscious, without ever defining what consciousness is. I would say that humans aren't conscious in the way we think we are. There is no free will, we don't decide what we think about, if you think about thinking, where does the first thought come from?

>>Frustr+ds4
I wish I could help you more, but I don't know if I really can. But look at it this way: What are the odds that you have figured out everything about existence and there is nothing more to it than cold matter? Wouldn't you at least try to prove yourself wrong?

>>carlos+0L7
I wish I could help you too. Isn't that the crux of the problem, you think I'm so deluded, I can't be helped, and I think the same of you. So once again, the two sides of any faith based / mystical interpretation of reality can't prove anything. I can't prove there is no soul, and you can't prove there is one. Anything based on mystical faith is just someone's opinion.

What are the odds you have it figured out? Why can't you try to prove yourself wrong. The odds are you haven't figured it out either, so why have you stopped trying. You say the soul exists, so why is the onus on me to prove it doesn't, but you don't have to prove anything.