5 ms·

Philosophically - sure. But philosophy is a feedback loop. Humans trying to build a model of their brain within their own brain. There is by definition not e

Philosophically - sure. But philosophy is a feedback loop. Humans trying to build a model of their brain within their own brain. There is by definition not enough oomph there, and that model will necessarily be approximate at best. Think that's what an out of touch techie would say? May I remind you that just a few hundred years ago the best philosophers were debating whether the world would descend into anarchy if more people realized that the big monkey in the sky doesn't exist. Just because philosophers talk about something doesn't mean it exists in reality. As for same output - there's a parameter called "temperature". It governs the random wandering in the output of an LLM. Reducing temp gives more deterministic output, but also reduces the capabilities. Is it possible that randomness is also precisely the mechanism behind human creativity?

roughly 24d ago
I'm still waiting for a definition of "consciousness," as well as a definition of the entity which you're claiming might possess it. You've now added two additional entities that require definition for your statements to be meaningful in any sense - "philosophy," the entire field of which you're dismissing as useless, which is going to be extremely fun if you ever actually decide to dig into the neuroscience of consciousness and how the brain works to make sense of the world, and creativity, which has come into the conversation for some reason I'm not entirely sure of but also warrants a definition that isn't trivially satisfiable by either an I Ching or a double pendulum, which, if you're arguing those are conscious, sure, I guess we could throw anything in that bucket then. You're arguing with all the rigor of a stoned college student, and fine, that's a register you can stay in, no problem with someone having hobbies, but at least have the decency to recognize what you're doing and acknowledge that other people have actually put in the work to be able to discuss and evaluate some of the questions you're positing as unknowable conundrums.

roughly 24d ago

I'm still waiting for a definition of "consciousness," as well as a definition of the entity which you're claiming might possess it. You've now added two additional entities that require definition for your statements to be meaningful in any sense - "philosophy," the entire field of which you're dismissing as useless, which is going to be extremely fun if you ever actually decide to dig into the neuroscience of consciousness and how the brain works to make sense of the world, and creativity, which has come into the conversation for some reason I'm not entirely sure of but also warrants a definition that isn't trivially satisfiable by either an I Ching or a double pendulum, which, if you're arguing those are conscious, sure, I guess we could throw anything in that bucket then. You're arguing with all the rigor of a stoned college student, and fine, that's a register you can stay in, no problem with someone having hobbies, but at least have the decency to recognize what you're doing and acknowledge that other people have actually put in the work to be able to discuss and evaluate some of the questions you're positing as unknowable conundrums.