[akoboldfrying]

>but that involves uncomputable physics and thus permanently out of reach of whatever computers can do.

And yet is somehow within reach of a fertilised human egg.

It's time to either invoke mystical dimensions of reality separating us from those barbarian computers, or admit that one day soon they'll be able to do intelligence too.

[weiliddat]

A fertilized egg doesn’t automatically become able to compute stuff.

Understimulated or feral children don’t automatically become geniuses when given more information.

It takes social engineering and tons of accumulated knowledge over the lifespan of the maturation of these eggs. The social and informational knowledge are then also informed by these individuals (how to work and cooperate with each other, building and discovering knowledge beyond what a single fertilized egg is able to do).

This isn’t simply within reach of a fertilized egg based on its biological properties.

[Xmd5a]

I used to believe this but changed my mind when I learned about that Brazilian orphanage for deaf kids. They were kinda left on their own and in the end developed their own signed language.

[weiliddat]

That was cool to read about. I don't think we're disagreeing here. Humans (fertilized eggs) have many needs and interactions that give rise to language itself.

Current LLMs seem to be most similar to the linguistic/auditory portion of our cognitive system, and with thinking/reasoning models some bits of the executive function. But my guess is that if we want to see awe-inspiring stuff come out of them, we need stuff like motivation and emotion, which doesn't seem to be the direction we're heading towards.

Unprofitable, full of problems. Maybe 1 in 100,000 might be an awe-inspiring genius, given the right training, environment, and other intelligences (so you might have to train way more than 100K models).

[namaria]

There's no magical thinking involved in discussing the limits of computability. That is a well researched area that was involved in the invention of digital computers.

Penrose's argument is interesting and I am inclined to agree with it. I might very well be wrong, but I don't think the accusation of magical thinking is warranted.

[akoboldfrying]

I'm arguing that, if a fertilised egg is really capable of fundamentally more than computers will ever be, then the only possible explanation is that the egg posseses extraphysical properties not possessed by any computer. (And I'm strongly hinting that this "explanation" should be considered laughable in this day and age.)

[namaria]

> the only possible explanation is that the egg posseses extraphysical properties

This is wrong. Computability is by no means the same as physicality. That's the whole point and you're just ignoring it to make some strawman accusation of ridiculousness.

[akoboldfrying]

1. What property of a fertilised egg enables it to compute uncomputable things?

2. If that property is a physical property, what prevents simulation of it?

[namaria]

> 1. What property of a fertilised egg enables it to compute uncomputable things?

The question is malformed. How can something compute an uncomputable thing?

> 2. If that property is a physical property, what prevents simulation of it?

Is P=NP?

[akoboldfrying]

>How can something compute an uncomputable thing?

If humans cannot compute uncomputable things either, on what grounds do you claim we are capable of something that computers are incapable of?