zlacker

“It’s just statistics” is an evergreen way to dismiss AI. The problem is you’re also just statistics.

>>Bulgar+(OP)
Shh. The models don’t like hearing that.

>>Bulgar+(OP)
Source for consciousness / intelligence to be "statistics"?

I don't think there is any because there is no functional model for what organic intelligence is or how it operates. There are plethora of fascinating attempts / models but only a subset implore that it is solely "statistical". And even if it was statistical, the implementation of the wet system is absolutely not like a gigantic list of vectorized (stripped of their essence) tokens

>>NobleL+l5
There’s a man who claims to have solved consciousness as a multilayered Bayesian prediction system.

See Scott Alexander for attempts to explain what is apparently impenetrable papers on it.

>>NobleL+l5
Sources for intelligence to be magic? I mean we know it's complicated but intelligence also spans the smallest creatures on the planet to humans. This points at intelligence being a reduceable problem that is layered. On top of that it's unlikely we need to model nerve behavior to get something intelligence like output.

>>NobleL+l5
That's like saying that airplanes aren't flying since they're not flapping their wings. Intelligence is a capability - not a specific mechanism.

Consciousness is a subjective experience (regardless of what you believe/understand to be responsible for that experience), so discussing "consciousness/intelligence" is rather like discussing "cabbages/automobiles".

>>NobleL+l5
Look at how Microsoft is instructing GPT to become "Sydney" and re-evaluate your opinions about what is intelligence:

https://twitter.com/marvinvonhagen/status/162365814434901197...