f_klem

9 ms·

1.
by f_klem 3mo ago
You can start by reading What Computers still can't do, by Hubert Dreyfus. Sorry to repeat myself: this books explains the assumptions the AI research programme is based on, and why they are problematic. It also references evidence. It
2.
by f_klem 3mo ago
The books that I referenced at my first comment already contain an extensive explanation of why those assumptions are flawed, false, or ungrounded. I will not paste here parts of books. Nonetheless, I've been compiling references on
3.
by f_klem 3mo ago
> You say that "the community" derives facts or claims from unproved assumptions, yet at the same time you say that you "strongly tend to disagree" with those theories and that the theories are "flawed in the sen
4.
by f_klem 3mo ago
I have the third edition, so I can only speak for it. Being the 3rd edition of the book, I assume that it is the 3rd time the text is revised, so I expect the other two editions (1st and 2nd) to adolesce from the same problem, which I state
5.
by f_klem 3mo ago
True, any research programme requires assumptions. The problem lies when those assumptions are either false or theoretical (unproved), and the community derives facts or claims from them. Behind the actual AI programme operate the following
6.
by f_klem 3mo ago
> Knowing what exact algorithm "thinking" is isn't a requirement. Automata class is enough to say "a Turing machine can implement it". I don't know what you are referring to by the word 'thinking'.
7.
by f_klem 3mo ago
I'm not trying to convince anyone. I am just baffled that a large part of the tech/software and AI research community do not question their own assumptions, when those assumptions are being actively questioned in other fields (nam
8.
by f_klem 3mo ago
> Your references that "back that claim", which are in "books you mentioned", which you "mentioned" who knows where. Yeah, no. I'm not walking that chain. If you want to, do it, but for now, I'm fi
9.
by f_klem 3mo ago
The issue of consciousness appears when you think of the world in a mechanistic way: since all there is are laws of physics and materiality, then how could we explain our though processes and our perceptual experience? If the world itself (
10.
by f_klem 3mo ago
I have that book at home and I'll check as soon as I get back from a trip. When Dreyfus' book appeared in 1972, it received really harsh criticism from the then AI community. Dreyfus actually comments on that criticism in the revi
11.
by f_klem 3mo ago
We know how LLMs learn at the fundamental level. What we do not know is the actual dynamic process of encoding embeddings and their distributions. Your analogies about the PC and web browser are not correctly formulated, because in the case
12.
by f_klem 3mo ago
1) I think that is precisely the flaw: it is reductionist. 2) how do you actually measure if a rock has consciousness? if you redefine consciousness as simply some kind of physical manifestation, like radiance or quantum fluctuation (measur
13.
by f_klem 3mo ago
> So why we call it subjective experience then? Probably it is irrelevant, and the reasons are purely historic... or maybe not. How about the idea of computers experiencing things, just not "subjectively" but rather "digit
14.
by f_klem 3mo ago
I am not an expert in panpsychism, but for what I know: 1) the idea that everything has a degree of consciousness proportional to its complexity, introduces the problem of compound consciousness. How do they compose, how is each consciousne
15.
by f_klem 3mo ago
I think the conversation derailed a bit. I see also a common pattern of jumping through different topics at different levels (from theoretical to concrete and back), and that is confusing. My original comment was that it seems (and it is ac
16.
by f_klem 3mo ago
There are two things here: one is how an LLM is fundamentally structured and designed, the other is how an LLM distributes and 'lays out' the relationship between inputs and outputs through layers and weights. We might not know ho
17.
by f_klem 3mo ago
Dreyfus builds his arguments based on Heidegger's work. You expressed it correctly: for Heidegger, in order to experience the world, we need a body that is always present in the world. It is like (but not the same) a continuum from the
18.
by f_klem 3mo ago
> It would be a valid argument if you could explain us what subjective experience and agency are. No one can explain this, so the arguments sounds like "AI doesn't have something I don't really know what, but they have to
19.
by f_klem 3mo ago
Again: don't be rude. Not nice. As 'not nice' as my bad formatting. Philosophy is there precisely to critique and analyze what we build and how we behave in the world. Without it, by the way, there would be no science and no
20.
by f_klem 3mo ago
> By what definition? We have this definition from the history of western languages, the history of western philosophy, and works by Lewis Mumford and Franz Reuleaux, among others authors. > The relevant question is whether they'
21.
by f_klem 3mo ago
It has to do with words and how we evolve words throughout history and across geographic boundaries. The term 'machine' comes, after some modifications, from the greek word mekhanos, which was used to describe something ingenious
22.
by f_klem 3mo ago
Agreed, formatting was kind of f , but there is no need to be rude. I wasn't saying there was any difference. All I'm saying is that the claimings the AI research field does are based on false assumptions. And from false assumptio
23.
by f_klem 4mo ago
Yes. I read the spanish translation (with occasional reading of the german original). A lot is lost in translation (I do not regard english translations too high). So yes, it is a difficult reading, on a difficult topic. He is not playing w
24.
by f_klem 4mo ago
There is no way of dealing with these topics via a non-anthropomorphic perspective. That has been already (in my view) proved by Heidegger and then Derrida. Last time I read about panpsychism, it was deeply flawed. But I can't remember
25.
by f_klem 4mo ago
As other commenters pointed out, I'm not getting into the mind/body problem. But that's what people normally do: you challenge the assumptions, and all of a sudden they assume you are already coming to a conclusion. And no, j
26.
by f_klem 4mo ago
> I don't think cognitive linguistics has that much to say about AI nowadays. Let alone philosophy. I would like to read those sources. > The biggest contributions from linguistics are probably "human languages mostly have s
27.
by f_klem 4mo ago
Indeed, I know there is research going on placing agency and free will as illusions of our own subjective experience. Yet, there is a big gap from a purely mechanistic view of the mind to the idea/phenomena of subjective experience.
28.
by f_klem 4mo ago
> It's raising the possibility that our thinking could be modeled as a machine. Given that, as you acknowledge, we don't have a clue how our mind works, it seems premature to rule out this possibility. In order to raise the pos
29.
by f_klem 4mo ago
> On the contrary, I highly recommend people in Philosophy of mind and linguistics should start reading AI research papers because their theories and ideas are highly outdated, even ancient. Your books are from 1927 and 1972 respectively
30.
by f_klem 4mo ago
> I highly recommend the philosophers read some neuroscience Philosophers do read neuroscience and technical reports on AI. > The whole "model weights" thing in AI is modeled after the synaptic connections and between actual

More ›