←back to thread

A non-anthropomorphized view of LLMs

(addxorrol.blogspot.com)
475 points zdw | 3 comments | | HN request time: 0.513s | source
1. Kim_Bruning ◴[] No.44485337[source]
Has anyone asked an actual Ethologist or Neurophysiologist what they think?

People keep debating like the only two options are "it's a machine" or "it's a human being", while in fact the majority of intelligent entities on earth are neither.

replies(2): >>44485434 #>>44488008 #
2. szvsw ◴[] No.44485434[source]
Yeah, I think I’m with you if you ultimately mean to say something like this:

“the labels are meaningless… we just have collections of complex systems that demonstrate various behaviors and properties, some in common with other systems, some behaviors that are unique to that system, sometimes through common mechanistic explanations with other systems, sometimes through wildly different mechanistic explanations, but regardless they seem to demonstrate x/y/z, and it’s useful to ask, why, how, and what the implications are of it appearing to demonstrating those properties, with both an eye towards viewing it independently of its mechanism and in light of its mechanism.”

3. seadan83 ◴[] No.44488008[source]
FWIW, in another part of this thread I quoted a paper that summed up what Neurophysiologists think:

> Author's note: Despite a century of anatomical, physiological, and molecular biological efforts scientists do not know how neurons by their collective interactions produce percepts, thoughts, memories, and behavior. Scientists do not know and have no theories explaining how brains and central nervous systems work. [1]

That lack of understanding I believe is a major part of the author's point.

[1] "How far neuroscience is from understanding brains" - https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10585277/#abstract1