Comment on Judge disses Star Trek icon Data’s poetry while ruling AI can’t author works

• Muaddib@sopuli.xyz ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

  Bold words coming from a statistical model.

  source

  • magikmw@lemm.ee ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

    If I could think I’d be so mad right now.

    source

    • Muaddib@sopuli.xyz ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

      en.wikipedia.org/…/The_Unreasonable_Effectiveness…

      He adds that the observation “the laws of nature are written in the language of mathematics,” properly made by Galileo three hundred years ago, “is now truer than ever before.”

      If cognition is one of the laws of nature, it seems to be written in the language of mathematics.

      Your argument is either that maths can’t think (in which case you can’t think because you’re maths) or that maths we understand can’t think, which is, like, a really dumb argument. Obviously one day we’re going to find the mathematical formula for consciousness, and we probably won’t know it when we see it, because consciousness doesn’t appear on a microscope.

      source

      • magikmw@lemm.ee ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

        I just don’t ascribe philosophical reasoning and mythical powers to models, just as I don’t ascribe physical prowess to train models, because they emulate real trains.

        Half of the reason LLMs are the menace they are is the whole “whoa ChatGPT is so smart” common mentality. They are not, they model based on statistics, there is no reasoning, just a bunch of if statements. Very expensive and, yes, mathematically interesting if statements.

        I also think it stiffles actual progress, having everyone jump on the LLM bandwagon and draining resources when we need them most to survive. In my opinion, it’s a dead end and wont result in AGI, or anything effectively productive.

        source

        • -> View More Comments