|
|
|
|
|
|
by whelp_24
839 days ago
|
|
|
>...its a term which denies the axioms. Because I do not believe in connectionist models of intelligence, nor in the stats/chaining model here, I see no reason to give credence to any AI self assertion ... While I disagree, I can respect such an answer. You fundamentally disagree with the possibility. The rest of my response is just some thoughts, no need to reply if you don't want. I respect your honest and rational
answer. >Explain to me how it differs from "parse error on line #3, quitting." beyond "that string appears literally in the sources" It different because it is generating novel sentences to novel situations. Not necessarily a high bar but it is different. I don't think that it can reliably quotes strings in the first place.
In the more abstract sense, I don't think we have enough knowledge of our mind to say we aren't llms (less provocatively phrased, our minds could just be statistics models). Even if we aren't, there's no reason to believe that ai even has to work the same as human consciousness. Helicopters, balloons, rockets, and planes all fly but work very differently: we only measure flight by the end result. (Yeah, Helicopters aren't actually that different from planes in a physics sense) |
|
|