Back to News
Advertisement
Advertisement

⚡ Community Insights

Discussion Sentiment

100% Positive

Analyzed from 1141 words in the discussion.

Trending Topics

#different#species#language#culture#consciousness#planning#human#possibly#lot#both

Discussion (38 Comments)Read Original on HackerNews

SapporoChris•about 2 hours ago
"She remained with it for several hours and possibly even days." Interesting article, but that comment veers into speculation. Speculation diminishes the value of a scientific article.
Laakeri•44 minutes ago
I'd say it instead makes it more precise, indicating that they are uncertain but the range is from several hours to days.
adzm•about 2 hours ago
I'm confused by how that is speculation.
SapporoChris•about 2 hours ago
The key word is possibly. Any statement with possibly in it could be true or false, it is speculation.
pastel8739•about 1 hour ago
Rather, the word “possibly” indicates uncertainty, the very foundation of science.
nexie•about 1 hour ago
Fair, but does that mean that the entire article is speculative? They were not around long enough to confirm whether or not it happened for days, but the fact that the mother stayed for at least some hours appears to be confirmed (although as another reply said, the motivation for staying could be different than ours).

You will likely find a lot of these hedging comments in scientific articles, as it’s hard to know and prove something with 100% certainty and it’s an important task for researchers to also indicate the limits of what they’ve discovered. I think ;)

phs318u•39 minutes ago
They are indicating a range (hours to days) for a value, and the “possibly” qualifier indicates some uncertainty in the range’s upper bound.
georgemcbay•about 2 hours ago
Blows my mind that so many people just have this hardened internalized idea that we're somehow significantly different than any other animal.

Sure, we've got them beat on language and planning, but we're currently in the process of being passed up on both those fronts by multi-dimensional arrays of floating point numbers sitting inside of sand. So, like, how special is that then, really?

jbotz•about 1 hour ago
Almost certainly our linguistic abilities (and through them, planning skills) are vastly greater than those of all other animals, but that is a matter of degree, not of category. The one thing in which we are categorically different from all other animals is that we learned to control and make fire... and quite possibly the linguistic abilities followed from that rather than the other way around[0]. Until the 20th century basically all of the advantages that technology bestowed upon our species directly flowed from our use of fire. Maybe our species should have been called "homo ignis"; the fire ape.

Obviously the cetaceans will never have that benefit, even if by some other objective measures they turned out to be as intelligent as humans.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catching_Fire:_How_Cooking_Mad...

JumpCrisscross•23 minutes ago
> Blows my mind that so many people just have this hardened internalized idea that we're somehow significantly different than any other animal

There are hard-asses on both ends. We are different from other animals. To me, that results in us having more moral agency for our actions. It also means recognising that we share this world with other beings, including billions of people, a tool-wielding sapience categorically distinct within the ecosystem.

parasti•about 1 hour ago
It's like that time when they "discovered" that babies can feel pain.
ggsp•about 1 hour ago
I know the point you’re making is half facetious—do you feel like LLMs are specifically getting better at planning?
georgemcbay•about 1 hour ago
> do you feel like LLMs are specifically getting better at planning?

When harnessed, yes. They still suck at it, but they are getting significantly better over a relatively short time.

And you don't have to look very far in any direction economically or politically to wonder if humans in 2026 are really as good at planning as we like to think and/or if we may be regressing in this area. Because a lot of things we are responsible for aren't going very well for the majority.

bot403•29 minutes ago
I'll write the dissenting opinion that the models still aren't very good at planning rather it's the agentic harness and prompts thereof that are giving us better planning ability on long and larger tasks.
jibal•43 minutes ago
"People ache to believe that we human beings are vastly different from all other species – and they are right! We are different. We are the only species that has an extra medium of design preservation and design communication: culture."

— Daniel Dennett

https://now.tufts.edu/2020/09/02/our-brains-our-selves

"One of the problems with defining consciousness is that it’s several different things—and it means different things to different people. There is a sense of consciousness in which starfish are conscious. Worms are conscious. Even trees, even bacteria are conscious. But there’s one dividing line between the amoeba and the professor in the consciousness department, which really marks off a huge difference: language.

It’s language that enables us to ask ourselves questions and reflect on our own experience. Frogs notice all kinds of things in their world, but I don’t think they can notice their noticings. I don’t think they can dwell on them. That whole sort of stairway of curiosity that we have built-in doesn’t exist for any species but us, and that makes a huge difference. Human consciousness is to animal consciousness roughly as language is to bird song. Birdsong communicates, but not much."

"Consciousness is not a part of the brain. It’s what brains can do. Particularly it’s what human brains can do when they are mature and well-designed, and a lot of that design is not innate. It’s not in your genes—in the same way German or English isn’t in your genes. Many of the features of consciousness are things that basically get installed culturally and at mother’s knee. It’s part of your rearing, your upbringing, your learning languages. It’s what you learn language in, and you learn a lot of consciousness, too."

"A lot of species have elements of culture. Chimpanzees have some grooming rituals and the like. But only one species has explosively cumulative culture, and that’s us. Of course, that depends on our having language. All of technology and civilization, art, science, religion, all these are the fruits of human culture."

“I think that one of the hardest tasks a human mind can face is reserving judgment about a conviction that has always seemed to you obvious and thinking about how maybe that might not be right"

nextaccountic•38 minutes ago
jibal•20 minutes ago
That obviously doesn't mean that we're not different--we obviously are, and it's not intellectually honest to deny it. There are SO many examples of things that have some common trait but are obviously different--skyscrapers and huts are both buildings, but they are different. Cheetahs and Usain Bolt both run fast, but they are different. Bacteria and oak trees are both alive, but they are different. "alike" and "different" are both words, but they are different. And so on ad infinitum.

If you had read the link above, you would have seen

"A lot of species have elements of culture. Chimpanzees have some grooming rituals and the like. But only one species has explosively cumulative culture, and that’s us. Of course, that depends on our having language. All of technology and civilization, art, science, religion, all these are the fruits of human culture."

which I have added to my comment.

I won't pursue further discussion when it's at such a shallow level of thinking as "we are not different" despite numerous clear differences.

card_zero•about 2 hours ago
Do LLMs grieve?
sssilver•about 1 hour ago
Insofar as grieving is an inherently, fundamentally a very particular chemical process, the answer is a resounding “no”.
Ma8ee•44 minutes ago
If you simulate that chemical process in a computer, if necessary a quantum computer?
moomoo11•about 1 hour ago
do humans? or is it only because we're the ones doing the research and so we say we do?

i think most people are automatons and can be programmed.

it is the most moral thing to program people to operate in ways that causes least harm to everyone else around them that has to live with them.

people like certain foods, outrage, and gambling/fomo.

JumpCrisscross•27 minutes ago
> do humans? or is it only because we're the ones doing the research and so we say we do?

...literally on this article.

georgemcbay•about 1 hour ago
Nope.

They can pretend to, of course, and use the language of grief, but if you can't feel the cold bottomless pit that has bored through your gut then you aren't really grieving.

Ma8ee•42 minutes ago
How do you know that they don’t? And conversely, how do you know any other human than yourself do?
card_zero•about 1 hour ago
Do whales grieve?
gigatexal•about 2 hours ago
Any parent here who has known this loss can relate. Didn’t think I’d see this on HN but yeah this is heartbreaking.
jibal•about 1 hour ago
> indicated an inherent, strong maternal attachment to the calf

Yeah, that's not grieving.

zer00eyz•about 2 hours ago
Orcas have also been seen to carry their dead calf's around.

https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/feature-story/southern-reside...