Surur t1_j72cx9j wrote
Reply to comment by ReExperienceUrSenses in I finally think the concept of AGI is misleading, fueled by all the hype, and will never happen by ReExperienceUrSenses
> But we CAN see cells. We made microscopes to see them.
That is far from the same. You have no visceral experience of cells. Your experience of cells is about the same as a LLM.
> This is the difficulty we face in science right now, the world of the very small and the very large is out of our reach and we have to make a lot of indirect assumptions that we back with other forms of evidence.
Yes, exactly, which is where your theory breaks down.
The truth is we are actually pretty good at conceptualizing things we can not see or hear or touch. A visceral experience is not a prerequisite for intelligence.
> I am trying to argue here is that “intelligence” is complex enough to be inseparable from the physical processes that give rise to it.
But I see you have also made another argument - that cells are very complex machines which are needed for real intelligence.
Can I ask what do you consider is intelligence? Because computers are super-human when it comes to describing a scene or reading handwriting or understanding the spoken word or being able to play strategy games or a wide variety of things which are considered intelligent. The only issue so far is bringing them all together, but this seems to be only a question of time.
ReExperienceUrSenses OP t1_j72ghoc wrote
Seeing them IS the visceral experience I'm talking about. We can even touch them and poke and prod them with things and see what they do. We feed them and grow them. You brush their waste products off your teeth and spew their gases out of either end of your GI tract. All of this interaction, including the abstract thoughts of it (because thinking itself is cellular activity, neurons are signaling each other to trigger broader associations formed from the total chain of cellular activity those thoughts engaged), together form the "visceral experience."
When I say visceral I don't human gut, I mean the inside of the cells themselves. Nothing is purely abstract, there is molecular activity going on for every single thing. It is the dynamics of that activity that determine the intelligence, because those dynamics are what "ground" everything. How would you approach the symbol grounding problem, because every time we note these systems failing to reason properly, it comes back to that issue.
None of these systems are superhuman, you should read the actual papers that put out those claims and you will see its a stretch. "Superhuman performance" is on specific BENCHMARKS only. For instance, none of the medical systems got anywhere (remember Watson?) and the self driving cars are proving to be way harder than we thought. They might as well be trains with all the stuff they have to do to get them work in actual dynamic driving situations. Games are not a good benchmark, because we created machine readable representations of the state space, the rules for transitions between states, and they have a formal structure that can be broken down into algorithmic steps. They don't play the games like we do, we have to carefully engineer the game into a form the machine can act on.
LLMs passing tests? Actually look at what "passing" means.
And please try to give me an abstract concept you think doesn't have any experiences tied to your understanding of it. I bet I can link many of the different experiences you use to create an analogy in order to understand it.
Surur t1_j72ink8 wrote
> Seeing them IS the visceral experience I'm talking about.
I thought you said adding vision won't make a difference? Now seeing is a visceral experience?
> All of this interaction, including the abstract thoughts of it (because thinking itself is cellular activity, neurons are signaling each other to trigger broader associations formed from the total chain of cellular activity those thoughts engaged), together form the "visceral experience."
You are stretching very far now. So thinking is a visceral experience? So AI can now also have visceral experiences?
> "Superhuman performance" is on specific BENCHMARKS only.
The point of a benchmark is to measure things. I am not sure what you are implying. Are you saying it is not super-human in the real world? Who do you think reads the scrawled addresses on your envelopes?
> And please try to give me an abstract concept you think doesn't have any experiences tied to your understanding of it.
Everything you think you know about cells are just things you have been taught. Every single thing. DNA, cell vision, the cytoskeleton, neuro-transmitters, rods and cones etc etc.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments