zlacker

>>mef+(OP)
The level of intellectual engagement with Chomsky's ideas in the comments here is shockingly low. Surely, we are capable of holding these two thoughts: one, that the facility of LLMs is fantastic and useful, and two, that the major breakthroughs of AI this decade have not, at least so far, substantially deepened our understanding of our own intelligence and its constitution.

That may change, particularly if the intelligence of LLMs proves to be analogous to our own in some deep way—a point that is still very much undecided. However, if the similarities are there, so is the potential for knowledge. We have a complete mechanical understanding of LLMs and can pry apart their structure, which we cannot yet do with the brain. And some of the smartest people in the world are engaged in making LLMs smaller and more efficient; it seems possible that the push for miniaturization will rediscover some tricks also discovered by the blind watchmaker. But these things are not a given.

>>atdt+SZ
> AI this decade have not, at least so far, substantially deepened our understanding of our own intelligence and its constitution

I would push back on this a little bit. While it has not helped us to understand our own intelligence, it has made me question whether such a thing even exists. Perhaps there are no simple and beautiful natural laws, like those that exists in Physics, that can explain how humans think and make decisions. When CNNs learned to recognize faces through a series of hierarchical abstractions that make intuitive sense it's hard to deny the similarities to what we're doing as humans. Perhaps it's all just emergent properties of some messy evolved substrate.

The big lesson from the AI development in the last 10 years from me has been "I guess humans really aren't so special after all" which is similar to what we've been through with Physics. Theories often made the mistake of giving human observers some kind of special importance, which was later discovered to be the cause of theories not generalizing.

>>lovepa+v61
> Perhaps there are no simple and beautiful natural laws, like those that exists in Physics, that can explain how humans think and make decisions.

Isn't Physics trying to describe the natural world? I'm guessing you are taking two positions here that are causing me confusion with your statement: 1) that our minds can be explained strictly through physical processes, and 2) our minds, including our intelligence, are outside of the domain of Physics.

If you take 1) to be true, then it follows that Physics, at least theoretically, should be able to explain intelligence. It may be intractably hard, like it might be intractably hard to have physics decribe and predict the motions of more than two planetary bodies.

I guess I'm saying that Physical laws ARE natural laws. I think you might be thinking that natural laws refer solely to all that messy, living stuff.

>>mykowe+OH1
I think their emphasis is on simple and beautiful; not that human intelligence is outside the laws of physics, but that there will never be a “Maxwell’s equations” modelling the workings of human intelligence, it will just be a big pile of hacks and complex interactions of many distinct parts; nothing like the couple of recursive LISP macros people of the 1960s might have hoped to find.