zlacker

>>zdw+(OP)
My question: how do we know that this is not similar to how human brains work. What seems intuitively logical to me is that we have brains evolved through evolutionary process via random mutations yielding in a structure that has its own evolutionary reward based algorithms designing it yielding a structure that at any point is trying to predict next actions to maximise survival/procreation, of course with a lot of sub goals in between, ultimately becoming this very complex machinery, but yet should be easily simulated if there was enough compute in theory and physical constraints would allow for it.

Because, morals, values, consciousness etc could just be subgoals that arised through evolution because they support the main goals of survival and procreation.

And if it is baffling to think that a system could rise up, how do you think it is possible life and humans came to existence in the first place? How could it be possible? It is already happened from a far unlikelier and strange place. And wouldn't you think the whole World and the timeline in theory couldn't be represented as a deterministic function. And if not then why should "randomness" or anything else bring life to existence.

>>mewpme+r8
> My question: how do we know that this is not similar to how human brains work.

It is similar to how human brains operate. LLMs are the (current) culmination of at least 80 years of research on building computational models of the human brain.

>>ants_e+09
Sorry, that's just complete bullshit. How LLMs work in no way models how processes in the human brain works.