648
Remember how ChatGPT totally aced the bar exam? Wow! yeah, turns out that was just a lie
(www.nytimes.com)
this post was submitted on 15 May 2024
648 points (100.0% liked)
TechTakes
1427 readers
111 users here now
Big brain tech dude got yet another clueless take over at HackerNews etc? Here's the place to vent. Orange site, VC foolishness, all welcome.
This is not debate club. Unless it’s amusing debate.
For actually-good tech, you want our NotAwfulTech community
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
It's almost like we can't make a machine conscious until we know what makes a human conscious, and it's obvious Emergentism is bullshit because making machines smarter doesn't make them conscious
Time to start listening to Roger Penrose's Orch-OR theory as the evidence piles up - https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.jpcb.3c07936
The given link contains exactly zero evidence in favor of Orchestrated Objective Reduction — "something interesting observed in vitro using UV spectroscopy" is a far cry from anything having biological relevance, let alone significance for understanding consciousness. And it's not like Orch-OR deserves the lofty label of theory, anyway; it's an ill-defined, under-specified, ad hoc proposal to throw out quantum mechanics and replace it with something else.
The fact that programs built to do spicy autocomplete turn out to do spicy autocomplete has, as far as I can tell, zero implications for any theory of consciousness one way or the other.
Bro the main objection to Orch-OR is that the brain is too warm for Quatnum stuff to happen there, and then they found Quantum stuff in the brain.... So... not sure how it's not suggestive of the reality of Orch-OR
Edit: Btw, I don't know where you're getting the idea that Orch-OR is "Trying to throw out Quantum Mechanics and replace it with something else", considering that it's dependent upon Quantum Mechanics, and we have demonstrated that "Quantum Biology" is a thing in plants - https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/when-it-comes-to-photosynthesis-plants-perform-quantum-computation/ and in birds - https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-01725-1
So why not the brain?
it’s very important to me that you don’t type the words “Blake Stacey” into a search engine while explaining quote unquote Quatnum stuff to them
randoms from /all wandering into the vale of sneers: https://www.buttersafe.com/2008/10/23/the-detour/
many such cases!
Psst, check the usernames of the people in this thread!
Who needs usernames when you have "context clues" instead? :-P
If it helps, I know who you are and will still happily tell you incorrect information about yourself and your profession if asked to!
Wow, I guess humans and LLMs aren't so different after all!
?
You're not doing yourself any favors with this reply.
Oh I see... I didn't realize you were trying to tell me I was talking to Blake Stacey or that he was respected in Quantum Mechanics. I completely misinterpreted what you were trying to tell me. I blame it on the inability of text to properly convey sarcasm.
you couldn't even be affronted with wit? dire
I had mis-interpreted the comment to along the lines of something like "You're just copying and pasting what you heard of Spirit Science aren't you?"
My most humble apologizes. Maybe I just wasn't paying hard enough attention.
Kludging an "objective reduction" process into the dynamics is throwing out quantum mechanics and replacing it with something else. And because Orch-OR is not quantum mechanics, every observation that a quantum effect might be biologically important somewhere is irrelevant. Orch-OR isn't "quantum biology", it's pixie-dust biology.
Never heard of this thing but just reading through the wiki
Neither randomly nor alorithmically, rather magically. Like really, what the fuck else could you mean by "non-computable" in there that would be distinguishable from magic?
And this is just crankery with absolutely no mathematical meaning. Also pure mathematical truths are not outside of the physical world, what the fuck would that even mean bro.
I thought Penrose was a smart physicist, the hell is he doing peddling this.
it's well outside of his ballpark somehow, it's like how Linus Pauling started all that megadose vitamin horseshit (starting with vit C), it sorta, kinda made a vibe-based shred of sense when you ignore all actual details, but he was hopelessly lost because he was not a biologist. what he had was nobel prize so he had enough cred for people to fall for it. many such cases!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nobel_disease
https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/2012-03-21
This is like 101 of bad logic, "this sentence is false because I failed to prove it just now".
Throwing out emergentism because some linear algebra failed to replicate it is a pretty bad take.
You're right that consciousness and intelligence are not the same. Our language tends to conflate the two.
However, evolution created consciousness over billions of years by emergent factors and no source of specific direction besides being more successful at reproduction. We can likely get there orders of magnitude faster than evolution could. The big problem would be recognizing it for what it is when it's here.
@frezik @HawlSera
> We can likely get there orders of magnitude faster than evolution could
[Citation needed]
I mean, assuming it is at all possible (or rather that the problem even means anything), I suppose four billion years is a rather generous deadline.
If I practice trying to shoot hoops every day I’m going to get one in a lot sooner than you will just kicking at the ball every time you walk by.
@WolfLink so you're saying there's a measurable correlation between practicing a skill and getting better at it? Amazing
What's this got to do with the Big Averaging Machine?
Specifically trying to do something will get it done a lot faster than waiting for it to happen by chance.
@WolfLink and that's how evolution works, is it?
Yes it is, in fact. Tiny, random variations, which typically take millions of years to end being a noticeable change.
@WolfLink note how nothing there is "trying" to do anything
Exactly my point. I’d expect humans trying to make something will get results on a timescale about a million times faster than evolution.
Ah, so you also think intelligent AI is at least 4000 years away.
lol
We go orders of magnitude faster than evolution on tons of things. It's not that big of a claim.