[CrackerNews]

The idea of this style of research and engineering in general is to create an approximation of observations of nature.

To follow completely in your footsteps would require recreating the totality of physical evolution that led to intelligence within a fraction of the time. This isn't feasible to an investor expecting returns within a reasonable timeline.

Getting to this point leaped from text generation to image generation to video generation, and now these three approaches are experimenting on what the next step should be. These three approaches did not come from an isolated vacuum and are the result of iterative progress.

The general idea now is to take the video model and give it 3D spatial capabilities to better model the implicitly symbolic and virtual worlds it is depicting and reason what would happen next. Fei-Fei Li wants to produce a 3D scene asset. DeepMind wants to simulate what can happen in that 3D scene. Yann LeCun wants to expand upon the symbolic reasoning by adding another layer of intelligence.

Traditional AI balk at the lack of inherent agentic purpose and goals, but LLMs separately evolved from pattern matching and statical analysis of the digital output of human labor.

A number of people in the LLM field have accepted that recreating the animal brain is not the point. Instead they work on a unique digital intelligence as if it was select fragments of the human brain existing in a digital world, informed by neuroscience research.

I think LLMs may not reason like a human with skin in the game, but humans are rather flawed in making sense of the nihilistic stage of history we find ourselves in. It is difficult for at least half of humanity on an IQ level to reason with what we have created. I think there is a case for a separate digital intelligence to analyze and make sense of the digital world which only seems to merge further with reality. Maybe this is a transhumanist singularity not in a technological term, but in terms of human idealism in creating values for ourselves.

[Marshferm]

These are not approximations, they are arbitrary simulations that have nothing to do with observation.

They’re irrelevant in terms of any idea of intelligence as intel is built upon topologies.

Intelligence is tied to development where functional outcomes are by genetic tinkering with environments for flexibility. These gaslighted trivial models are function aimed, so they have zero ability to even mimic what intel is.

Face it this is a massive washout. It has no ambition. It lacks even a weak definition of the models name “spatial intelligence” and it lacks one because there is no such thing.

Fundamentally world models do not exist and are oxymoronic.

[CrackerNews]

Neural nets and LLMs were created based on neuroscience research. Ultimately they are approximations of how parts of the human brain works.

The real concern of having no biomechanical skin in the game is lacking sensory input that could ground it within our reality. All input into LLMs are based on digital output of human labor, which are ultimately symbolic representations filtered through our brain and its ideas of reality. However, this may not be too different from how our real human brains work.

There has been a philosophical dilemma over how real consciousness can be as if it is imagined by our brains since our brains provide convincing hallucination of what seems like real sensory input or even free will. That is to say that humans at a philosophical level live in their brains interpreting a fragment of reality based upon how it interprets sensory input.

Now the LLM as a brain cuts out an entire step of agentic sensory input and they exist wholly as the result of our ideas.

[Marshferm]

They have no functional or processual relationship to brains, there are scores of papers making light of this. There are no valid parallels between AI and brains.

There were never approximations merely false models.

The field is trapped in bad definitions and decisions

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37863713/

[CrackerNews]

The keyword of that study is consciousness, which I'd consider a separate goal than an "intelligence". LLM proponents are aware that their architecture lacks many parts of what constitutes a complete brain, and there's other AI researchers who disagree that LLMs will lead to either AGI or consciousness. I largely consider these tangential to the topic. A neural net simulation of a virtual reality does not need consciousness as it has to model the consequences of agentic actions.

[Marshferm]

It’s not a keyword, it’s the seat of intelligence. What coders don’t grasp is nothing g related to symbols metaphors words language manifests as consciousness and or intel. Your field is a wash.

“We refute (based on empirical evidence) claims that humans use linguistic representations to think.” Ev Fedorenko Language Lab MIT

[CrackerNews]

When I look up that quote, it leads back to Hacker News comments. It is also a strange way to make a citation. You make blanket statements that are easily argued against, and now you respond with this nonsense. I accuse you of being an LLM bot.