←back to thread

A non-anthropomorphized view of LLMs

(addxorrol.blogspot.com)
475 points zdw | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.211s | source
Show context
quotemstr ◴[] No.44485158[source]
> I am baffled that the AI discussions seem to never move away from treating a function to generate sequences of words as something that resembles a human.

And I'm baffled that the AI discussions seem to never move away from treating a human as something other than a function to generate sequences of words!

Oh, but AI is introspectable and the brain isn't? fMRI and BCI are getting better all the time. You really want to die on the hill that the same scientific method that predicts the mass of an electron down to the femtogram won't be able to crack the mystery of the brain? Give me a break.

This genre of article isn't argument: it's apologetics. Authors of these pieces start with the supposition there is something special about human consciousness and attempt to prove AI doesn't have this special quality. Some authors try to bamboozle the reader with bad math. Other others appeal to the reader's sense of emotional transcendence. Most, though, just write paragraph after paragraph of shrill moral outrage at the idea an AI might be a mind of the same type (if different degree) as our own --- as if everyone already agreed with the author for reasons left unstated.

I get it. Deep down, people want meat brains to be special. Perhaps even deeper down, they fear that denial of the soul would compel us to abandon humans as worthy objects of respect and possessors of dignity. But starting with the conclusion and working backwards to an argument tends not to enlighten anyone. An apology inhabits the form of an argument without edifying us like an authentic argument would. What good is it to engage with them? If you're a soul non-asserter, you're going to have an increasingly hard time over the next few years constructing a technical defense of meat parochialism.

replies(2): >>44485272 #>>44485328 #
ants_everywhere ◴[] No.44485272[source]
I think you're directionally right, but

> a human as something other than a function to generate sequences of words!

Humans have more structure than just beings that say words. They have bodies, they live in cooperative groups, they reproduce, etc.

replies(2): >>44485284 #>>44485580 #
1. quotemstr ◴[] No.44485284[source]
> Humans have more structure than just beings that say words. They have bodies, they live in cooperative groups, they reproduce, etc.

Yeah. We've become adequate at function-calling and memory consolidation.