Well, first of all, like I already said, I don’t think there’s substrate dependence on either general intelligence or consciousness, so I’m not going to try to prove there is - it’s not a belief I hold. I’m simply acknowledging the possibility that there might be something more mysterious about the workings of the human mind that we don’t yet understand, so I’m not going to rule it out when I have no way of disproving it.
Secondly, both claims - that consciousness has very little influence on the mind, and that general intelligence isn’t complicated to understand - are incredibly bold statements I strongly disagree with. Especially with consciousness, though in my experience there’s a good chance we’re using that term to mean different things.
To me, consciousness is the fact of subjective experience - that it feels like something to be. That there’s qualia to experience.
I don’t know what’s left of the human mind once you strip away the ability to experience, but I’d argue we’d be unrecognizable without it. It’s what makes us human. It’s where our motivation for everything comes from - the need for social relationships, the need to eat, stay warm, stay healthy, the need to innovate. At its core, it all stems from the desire to feel - or not feel - something.
I don’t think it does, but it seems conceivable that it potentially could. Maybe there’s more to intelligence than just information processing - or maybe it’s tied to consciousness itself. I can’t imagine the added ability to have subjective experiences would hurt anyone’s intelligence, at least.
I don't even remember what they did when I bailed. Some redesign thing close to a decade ago. I've been using Podcast Republic ever since as it resembles what Pocket Cast was like before they screwed it up.
I don't use it to ask for mental health advice but it's nice to have "someone" to talk to that at least pretends to be interested in what I have to say. I used to have these conversations with myself inside my head. AI at least sometimes brings up a new perspective or says something novel.
The chart is just for illustration to highlight my point. As I already said - pick a different chart if you prefer, it doesn’t change the argument I’m making.
It took us hundreds of thousands of years to go from stone tools to controlling fire. Ten thousand years to go from rope to fish hook. And then just 60 years to go from flight to space flight.
I’ll happily grant you rapid technological progress even over the past thousand years. My point still stands - that’s yesterday on the timeline I’m talking about.
If you lived 50,000 years ago, you’d see no technological advancement over your entire lifetime. Now, you can’t even predict what technology will look like ten years from now. Never before in human history have we taken such leaps as we have in the past thousand years. Put that on a graph and you’d see a steady line barely sloping upward from the first humans until about a thousand years ago - then a massive spike shooting almost vertically, with no signs of slowing down. And we’re standing right on top of that spike.
Throughout all of human history, the period we’re living in right now is highly unusual - which is why I claim that on this timeline, AGI might as well be here tomorrow.
Not really the same thing. The Tic Tac Toe brute force is just a lookup - every possible state is pre-solved and the program just spits back the stored move. There’s no reasoning or decision-making happening. Atari Chess, on the other hand, couldn’t possibly store all chess positions, so it actually ran a search and evaluated positions on the fly. That’s why it counts as AI: it was computing moves, not just retrieving them.
The chart is just for illustration purposes to make a point. I don't see why you need to be such a dick about it. Feel free to reference any other chart that you like better which displays the progress of technological advancements thorough human history - they all look the same; for most of history nothing happened and then everything happened. If you don't think that this progress has been increasing at explosive speed over the past few hundreds of years then I don't know what to tell you. People 10k years ago had basically the same technology as people 30k years ago. Now compare that with what has happened even jist during your lifetime.
If I was in the market for a new TV I'd probably go for an OLED assuming image burn-in is no longer an issue with them, but I'll happily use my 15 year old LED TV for as long as it lasts. I can tell the difference in contrast when side by side with LED/LCD but in normal daily use I don't pay any attention to it.
I think comparing an LLM to a brain is a category mistake. LLMs aren’t designed to simulate how the brain works - they’re just statistical engines trained on language. Trying to mimic the human brain is a whole different tradition of AI research.
An LLM gives the kind of answers you’d expect from something that understands - but that doesn’t mean it actually does. The danger is sliding from “it acts like” to “it is.” I’m sure it has some kind of world model and is intelligent to an extent, but I think “understands” is too charitable when we’re talking about an LLM.
And about the idea that “if it’s just statistics, we should be able to see how it works” - I think that’s backwards. The reason it’s so hard to follow is because it’s nothing but raw statistics spread across billions of connections. If it were built on clean, human-readable rules, you could trace them step by step. But with this kind of system, it’s more like staring into noise that just happens to produce meaning when you ask the right question.
I also can’t help laughing a bit at myself for once being the “anti-AI” guy here. Usually I’m the one sticking up for it.
You’re right - in the NLP field, LLMs are described as doing “language understanding,” and that’s fine as long as we’re clear what that means. They process natural language input and can generate coherent output, which in a technical sense is a kind of understanding.
But that shouldn’t be confused with human-like understanding. LLMs simulate it statistically, without any grounding in meaning, concepts or reference to the world. That’s why earlier GPT models could produce paragraphs of flawless grammar that, once you read closely, were complete nonsense. They looked like understanding, but nothing underneath was actually tied to reality.
So I’d say both are true: LLMs “understand” in the NLP sense, but it’s not the same thing as human understanding. Mixing those two senses of the word is where people start talking past each other.
Well, first of all, like I already said, I don’t think there’s substrate dependence on either general intelligence or consciousness, so I’m not going to try to prove there is - it’s not a belief I hold. I’m simply acknowledging the possibility that there might be something more mysterious about the workings of the human mind that we don’t yet understand, so I’m not going to rule it out when I have no way of disproving it.
Secondly, both claims - that consciousness has very little influence on the mind, and that general intelligence isn’t complicated to understand - are incredibly bold statements I strongly disagree with. Especially with consciousness, though in my experience there’s a good chance we’re using that term to mean different things.
To me, consciousness is the fact of subjective experience - that it feels like something to be. That there’s qualia to experience.
I don’t know what’s left of the human mind once you strip away the ability to experience, but I’d argue we’d be unrecognizable without it. It’s what makes us human. It’s where our motivation for everything comes from - the need for social relationships, the need to eat, stay warm, stay healthy, the need to innovate. At its core, it all stems from the desire to feel - or not feel - something.