zlacker

>>vforgi+(OP)
Imagine thinking that regression based function approximators are capable of anything other than fitting the data you give it. Then imagine willfully hyping up and scaring people who don't understand, and because it can predict words you take advantage of the human tendency to anthropomorphize, so it follows that it is something capable of generalized and adaptable intelligence.

Shame on all of the people involved in this: the people in these companies, the journalists who shovel shit (hope they get replaced real soon), researchers who should know better, and dementia ridden legislators.

So utterly predictable and slimy. All of those who are so gravely concerned about "alignment" in this context, give yourselves a pat on the back for hyping up science fiction stories and enabling regulatory capture.

>>srslac+I7
>Imagine thinking that regression based function approximators are capable of anything other than fitting the data you give it.

Are you aware that you are an 80 billion neuron biological neural network?

>>logica+Pe
And this is why I always hate how computer parts are named with biological terms.... a neural network's neuron doesn't share much with a human brain's neuron

Just like a CPU isn't "like your brain" and HDD "like your memories"

Absolutely nothing says our current approach is the right one to mimic a human brain

>>lm2846+Co
The human brain works around a lot of limiting biological functions. The necessary architecture to fully mimic a human brain on a computer might not look anything like the actual human brain.

That said, there are 8B+ of us and counting so unless there is magic involved, I don't see why we couldn't do a "1:1" replica of it (maybe far) in the future.