For example, try
x_next = r * x * (1 - x)
A function of some historical significance O:-) (try plotting it btw!)Except if you actually look up the definitions, they don't mention "organisms with nervous systems" at all. Curious.
Human humans have some instinctive desire to think themselves elevated. I am convinced that my internal thoughts are just a phenomenon, and the notion of “I choose to think a given thought. “ is preposterous in an of itself. Where exactly is this lofty perch from which I am controlling i?
So you're stumbling onto a position that's closest to "Biological Naturalism", which is Searle's philosophy. However, lots of people disagree with him, saying he's a closeted dualist in denial.
I mean, he was a product of his time, early 80's was dominated by symbolic AI, and that definitely wasn't working so well. Despite that, he got a lot of pushback from Dennett and Hofstadter even back then.
Chalmers recently takes a more cautious approach, while his student Amanda Askell is present in our conversation even if you haven't realized it yet. ;-)
Meanwhile the poor field of Biology is feeling rather left out of this conversation, having been quite steadfastly monist since the late 19th century, having rejected vitalism in favor of mechanism. (though the last dualists died out in the 50's-ish?)
And somewhere in our world's oceans, two sailors might be arguing whether or not a submarine can swim. On board a Los Angeles class SSN making way at 35 kts at -1000feet.
It seems a bit like saying cars don't run, we have to stop saying they are flying along. I mean Gemini doesn't think the same or as well as a human but it does something along those lines.
doesn't mean it's true
kylecazar•2w ago
If you do correct someone (a layperson) and say "it's not thinking", they'll usually reply "sure but you know what I mean". And then, eventually, they will say something that indicates they're actually not sure that it isn't thinking. They'll compliment it on a response or ask it questions about itself, as if it were a person.
It won't take, because the providers want to use these words. But different terms would benefit everyone. A lot of ink has been spilled on how closely LLM's approximate human thought, and maybe if we never called it 'thought' to begin with it wouldn't have been such a distracting topic from what they are -- useful.
m_Anachronism•2w ago
Kim_Bruning•2w ago
kylecazar•2w ago
I think that's compatible with optimism towards LLM's though. It just removes all of the nonsensical conflation with humanity and human intelligence.