Back to News
Advertisement
Advertisement

⚡ Community Insights

Discussion Sentiment

75% Positive

Analyzed from 517 words in the discussion.

Trending Topics

#intelligence#makes#cannot#solve#compute#human#life#biology#consciousness#humans

Discussion (7 Comments)Read Original on HackerNews

Kim_Bruning•about 1 hour ago
I'm partial to bioinformatics as per Pauline Hogeweg's definition; which explicitly has computation as a property of life.

This approach actually makes testable (and tested) scientific predictions.

This makes Searle-derived papers super-weird for me; since from my perspective they seem to disprove the existence of life. (and it makes the name of the philosophy "biological naturalism" very ironic to me :-P )

(for extra irony, Turing actually went into biology late in his life. See: Turing 1952 "The Chemical Basis of Morphogenesis" )

diablozzq•about 2 hours ago
Consciousness is a property of humans biology - and quite clearly not a requisite to intelligence.

I say clearly as at some point we reach proof by construction. As in, we already built intelligence because the system already completes tasks that require intelligence.

We are so far into what would have been science fiction five years ago and the goal posts have moved so far.

For anyone who disagrees, I challenge you to prove deep learning systems cannot solve <task with specific outcome humans can solve but not AI> given sufficient data and compute.

I think the strongest sign we have true intelligence already is no one has built any benchmark that AI cannot solve.

Yes, our current robotics lags AI, so we don’t have the equivalent of the human body to give our deep learning systems. Thus, it’s expected AI will be limited in physical scenarios.

Second, hallucinations are present in humans. We are highly biased to ignore all the misspoken words in everyday life as we have error correction built into normal conversations. How often do you have to have someone repeat or rephrase something?

It just doesn’t make sense to me.

It’s like there are people out there whose belief systems are incompatible with this tech existing.

Sure, it has limitations due to training data. It has limitations with no physical body. It cannot combine training and inference the same way a human does. But none of those are measures of intelligence or required to be intelligent.

lukev•about 2 hours ago
"intelligence" is not well defined. LLMs are throwing this into high relief with how "spiky" their capability curve is. Yes, they can solve some crazy hard problems with enough compute and thinking tokens. Yes, they also fall down in the dumbest ways without an ability to self-correct... despite how "smart" they are, human supervision remains absolutely critical for any system of importance.

But I don't think the takeaway is "humans are intelligent and LLMs are not", it's that our vocabulary for talking about the intersection of language, cognition and compute is not up for the task.

duped•about 2 hours ago
I cannot express concisely how deeply I disagree with all of this.

It is not just uninteresting that computer programs can be written to accomplish information tasks, it's intellectually dishonest to anthropomorphize machines and algorithms to characterize it as consciousness.

> no one has built any benchmark that AI cannot solve

"Be human."

mstank•about 3 hours ago
Glad to see Searle's Chinese Room mentioned early on in the paper. "Syntax is not sufficient for semantics," no matter how much compute we throw at the problem.

My very amateur view is that until the underlying compute architecture and substrate resembles artificial biology more than silicon, we wont get there.

The latest advances in AI have given me even more appreciation of biology and evolution. It's incredible what the human brain can do with about 20 watts of power, barely enough to power a lightbulb, in comparison to what it takes to run even our most basic LLM models.

jdmoreira•about 2 hours ago
This is the complete opposite of Hofstadter's "Strange Loop" hypothesis, which intuitively makes much more sense to me.
yogthos•about 3 hours ago
The paper makes a huge assumption that only thermodynamic constitutions can produce consciousness. The assumptions seems completely unsubstantiated given that thermodynamics are just states and states are replicable. The whole Chinese Room idea is pure sophistry as well. Both Dennett and Hofstadter address it quite well in Consciousness Explained and I am a Strange Loop respectively.