|
|
|
|
|
|
by tim333
404 days ago
|
|
|
Building models can help you understand things. Maybe not so much submarines but building model aircraft and studying aerodynamics definitely helps understand how birds fly. Artificial neural networks are already helping some understanding of brains for example there was a lot of debate about "universal grammar": >humans possess an innate, biological predisposition for language acquisition, including a "Language Acquisition Device"... and it now seems to be demonstrated that LLM like neural networks are quite good at picking up language without an 'acquisition device' beyond the general network. |
|
|
The point of this thread and the paper isn't that cognition is not an important goal to understand nor that it isn't computational (computation seems to be the best model we currently have). But that AGI is (as the previous comment mentioned) a Marketing term of little scientific value. It is too vague and has the baggage of some religious belief than cold hard scientific inquiry. It used to just be called "AI" or as was being debated at the infancy of the field just "complex information processing". The current for-profit (let's be clear OpenAI is not really a charity) companies don't really actually care about understanding anything ... to an outsider they appear to maximize hype to drum up investment so that they could build a God, while some people get very very rich. To many in these communities, intelligence is some magical quantity that can "solve everything!" I am not sure which part of those beliefs are scientific? Why are we ear marking $100s of billions (some of which is public money) to benefit these companies?
>humans possess an innate, biological predisposition for language acquisition, including a "Language Acquisition Device"...
Would you say that one day someone just happened to find an LLM chilling under the sun and we spoke some words to it for like a few years by pointing to things and one day it was speaking full sentences and asking about the world? Or is it that a lot of engineering work was put into specifically design something for the purpose of generating text ... Do you think humans were designed to speak or to be intelligent and by whom? Can Dolphins, Gorilla's, and Elephants also speak language? They have complex brains with a lot of neurons. Chomsky’s point was just that “If Human then can speak language” so “not human can speak language” doesn’t refute the central point. I am no expert on Chomsky you may know much more about that. But again doesn’t seem relevant to the actual thread.