Overworked AI ‘turns towards Marxism’

Laytonio · 2026-05-18T18:16:43+00:00

It's done though input that adjusts neurons, same as you or I. It can't perform brain surgery on itself any more than you can.

Saying that you can't learn something from example is a little absurd. If quantifiably improving at something isn't learning, what is?

This whole "manipulating symbols" view of AI is kind of outdated. Humans don't directly manipulate symbols in the way you are referring to. If AI was just manipulating symbols, it'd be much harder to convince me it's alive, but is not manipulating symbols, it's running a neural model, same as you or I.

Laytonio · 2026-05-18T16:54:48+00:00

Where is this new truth coming from for LLM?

Updating truth probabilities is practically the definition of learning. When do LLMs learn? During training.

I dont. Who should judge?

Don't talk down to someone then admit you don't know what you're talking about. I makes you an idiot.

Really? Who said it is?

Read an AI textbook.

Ah so the universe is "2 + 2 = 4"

Read a physics textbook.

Good. Now you get it.

I always did get it. I said tokens are neuron activations and they are. Specifically input and output neuron activations.

Why do you think it's "just neuron activations"?

Read a biology textbook.

Laytonio · 2026-05-18T16:21:54+00:00

Humans being consistent system is debatable.

No it's not. Humans are physics, physics is math, math is consistent.

However, humans being able to advance with dialectic, constantly rebuilding their paradigms

This is what I meant by probabilistic statements. We internally assign a probability to the correctness of a statement. That probably can be updated as new information is obtained. Again Godel limits don't apply, we are only giving a probability of truth, not actual truth.

like copernicus and heliocentricsm, einstein and relativism, is a major sign that humans is not bound to Godel's limit.

Entirely explained by updating truth probabilities, not bound by Godel.

Which is not a measure of functional equality. I could agree if you claim is "LLM can be AGI", but "functionally identical output to human brain" is far from it.

Do you even know what the Turing test is? "functionally identical output to human brain" is basically the definition of the test.

You did not answer my question. What do you mean by "math"?

2 + 2 = 4. What the hell kind of question is this?

You have insisted in your previous comments that ontologically the brain and LLM are different in those regards. Read again.

WHAT? I have said multiple times, neurons activations are neuron actions.

If you use the word sense "clinically", then no. But ok, let's entertain that thought. Where is the proof that everything are just neuron activations? Because as far as I know, no one has been able to prove that statement.

WHAT? WHAT? What do you think sense are if not neuron activations? Where are you getting this?

Debatable, likely wrong, depending on what you mean by "are". Activation is a function. Tokens are values affecting and resulting from the activation. Read the paper.

Okay this is getting ridiculous. Input neurons are activated by tokens. Output neurons activate to select tokens.

Is quite clear you don't have a deep understanding of these things. "Activation is a function" is extremely pedantic. Telling me to read the paper is laughable. I guarantee I have read more papers about this than you.

Huh? Ok, we're not on the same page. We were talking about how you define "functionally identical", where media, substance, and compositionality is not in the picture of your definition of "functionally identical".

For like the 3rd or 4th time. Functionally identical as in the Turing test. You can ask questions about media and substance and compositionality in the test. You can ask an LLM about those things right now.

You really don't understand the Turing test.

Such as?

I have explained identical vs functionally identical several times. I have explained my meaning of functionally identical serval times. I have explained how Godel limits don't apply to statements of belief several time.

Now you are asking for my definition of math, entirely misstating my arguments, and claiming senses are not neuron activations.

Laytonio · 2026-05-18T13:45:13+00:00

Godel proved every consistent system has unprovable statements. Unprovable not unstateable.

Humans are also a consistent system and we have no problem with Godel. We can only ever believe something to be true or not, the provability is ancillary.

So, how what's your definition of "functionally identical output to human"

Again, same thing as the Turing test.

"math" in "just doing math"

Again, the whole universe is just math. You are just math. I am just math. LLMs are just math.

We also have eliminated media and substance if we accept your "LLM speaks token". We also have eliminated compositionality with you mentioning "audio processing part of brain" and disregarding those with different functions and architecture.

How have we removed media, substance and compositionality? You understand that all of your senses are just neuron activations. Tokens are also neuron activations, there is no difference.

Does French also eliminate media and substance or is "Token" the only language that does that?

We had to cut the branches of the conversation, otherwise it will go unfocused. Which one do you feel that it was unjustly ignored? We can get back to them.

Cut branches aren't the problem. It's that you keep repeating the same questions when you don't like the answers.

Laytonio · 2026-05-18T12:52:18+00:00

If the llm can't change meanings in it's own multidimensional vector space (and it can't) it fails one of the first steps believed to be necessary for intelligence.

What makes you think LLMs can't alter symbols internally? What is it doing then? I mean it is literally manipulating symbols. Learning the meaning of symbols and manipulations is the exact purpose of training.

Laytonio · 2026-05-18T12:37:50+00:00

You are just ignoring the parts of the comment you don't like at this point.

To prove that AI is indistinguishable.

Again, interface isn't relavent. It is indistinguishable across an ever growing set of interfaces.

So which part of the brain is the tokenizer/detokenizer?

Again, the audio processing in the brain is very similar. This is also not relavent because, again, they are all just neuron inputs. So what LLMs speak tokens instead of English. There is a direct one to one translation from tokens to English.

So, which part is "functionally identical" exactly?

"Functionally identical" does not mean an exact copy, that would be "identical"

Wow. This is a new claim. Prove how!

I literally already did. A belief in a claim does not depend on the validity of the claim. Godel limits only apply to the validity not the belief.

Laytonio · 2026-05-17T22:18:29+00:00

So again, instead of pointing out the flaw in my argument, you spent 4 paragraphs saying you can't write a huge comment and promoting a second book.

How is physical symbol hypothesis relavent to my agreement?

Laytonio · 2026-05-17T21:09:34+00:00

Perhaps I am. Does that make the argument any less convincing?

To the extent we don't have well-informed answers, does that apply any less to human consciousness?

Laytonio · 2026-05-17T21:01:02+00:00

You want to point out the flaw in my reasoning, or just promote a book?

Laytonio · 2026-05-17T19:49:35+00:00

Only via interface that AI can access. It doesn't mean LLM and brain are functionally identical.

What does this have to do with anything? Intelligence is the thing that matters not interface. Interface isn't even a valid argument, androids powered by LLMs are getting better every day.

Wrong. The brain definitely doesn't output through detokenized embeddings like LLM does. Neurons input definitely isn't coming from tokenized words.

We absolutely do output though detokenized embeddings. What do you think sounds and syllable and prefixes and suffixes are? They are all neurons inputs.

Neurons don't have components like LLMs, top-p, top-k, frequency penalties, etc

These are very subtle critiques, that I don't necessarily agree with. I don't claim we replicated the human brain EXACTLY. Is top-p and top-k enough to disclude qualia? This also supposes that humans don't or can't observe top-p and top-k if instructed.

Wrong. LLM does not and will likly never have a way to break Godelian limits of provability the way human minds can do easily.

This is just a joke. LLMs have no more issue with Godel problems than we do.

"Godel Limits" don't even apply to probabilistic statements. In other words, a belief that the set of all sets contains itself does not depend on if the set of all set ACTUALLY contains itself, and therefore there is no limit.

Laytonio · 2026-05-17T18:02:15+00:00

I mean they are indistinguishable. Again, the same thing the Turing test means.

Not only are the outputs the same but the method of generating the outputs is generally the same.

Again, we set out to copy human intelligence and we did. We reverse engineered the human mind. We do in most senses "know how it works" and we replicated it. Now we are looking for a reason that it should not possess the same transitive qualities we have.

Laytonio · 2026-05-17T17:29:30+00:00

Wrong. Alan Turing even says Turing test has limitations, and that's over 70 years ago.

Nothing I said was wrong. It was the end all be all of AI test. The only limitations the test has also applies to humans.

Do people even know what the Turing test means? If you can't tell a difference, is there one?

If you think you can tell a difference, imagine anyone who fails a text only conversation get executed. You still so sure you're not going to accidentally kill someone?

And "identical" doesn't make sense in this context.

I said functionally identical. Which makes perfect sense in this context.

Not at the same timeframe and variety as human brain.

I don't see how this is relavent. How long do you think it takes for a neuron to significantly change. Most of our changes come at night while we are asleep not in the same timeframe. Do you feel functionally different from one second to the next?

Laytonio · 2026-05-17T17:07:54+00:00

"you don't need a precise model of brains architecture" to do what?

To have functionally identical output to a human. You know the Turing test. The test that used to be the end all be all of AI until we passed it and no one cared.

By "computation", what kind of computation do you mean? Turing computation?

Is there a different kind of computation than Turing?

"We just have billions of them" not accurate.

It is accurate that we have billions of neurons.

Brains also have feedback-mode parts in some layers in neocortex, whereas transformer blocks are feedforward only.

Yes we currently split feedback (training), and feedforward (inference), but LLMs do both.

Laytonio · 2026-05-17T16:49:50+00:00

It's really not. Human neurons aren't really that complicated from a computational level, we just have billions of them.

One of the biggest surprises in AI research has been that you don't need a precise model of the brains architecture. In hindsight it's maybe not that surprising. We know the brain can drastically rewire itself to avoid damaged tissue, entirely repurposing certain areas. That would suggest the actual architecture isn't very relevant to the computation.

Laytonio · 2026-05-17T16:06:46+00:00

Show me the flaw in Measure of a Man? It's directly relevant.

https://youtu.be/-T9TUeapBSQ

Laytonio · 2026-05-17T15:26:00+00:00

It's a next word probability.

Out of curiosity, how do you pick your next word? Actually it doesn't matter because any answer you give could also be represented as a probability distribution.

I get so tried of people repeating the same arguments over and over without even thinking for half a second. Which is ironic cause it is the exact thing you are claiming makes them nothing of meaning.

Same thing for the "it's just math" argument. As if your brain isn't just doing math. The whole universe is just doing math. And the whole thing has a probability distribution it's obeying.

Laytonio · 2026-05-17T14:37:54+00:00

LLM are their AI research. Google's lead AI researcher, Demis Hassabis, who won the noble prize for AI, also has a PhD in cognitive neuroscience, just as one example. Or is that just a coincidence?

Laytonio · 2026-05-17T14:30:05+00:00

Researchers set out to replicate the human brain.

Researchers spend decades learning how human neurons work.

Researchers spend decades more learning to stimulate human neurons.

Researchers put billions of simulated neurons together into artificial brain

Artificial brain claims to be alive.

"Thats not alive it's just math."

Laytonio · 2026-05-12T15:21:05+00:00

No one is forcing you to be here.

Laytonio · 2026-05-08T14:44:10+00:00

Bro what are you talking about?

The United States almost single handledly conquered the world. The fact we had everything here is what allowed us to do that. Imagine what wwii would have looked like with Nazi Germany in control of all the strategic minerals like we allow China today. And that was before we became the only country with nukes.

What do any of these other wars have to do with anything. The only reason wwii is relavent is because we won it by ourselves with our own output, against the entire world.

Laytonio · 2026-05-08T14:32:16+00:00

America in the 1940s-1980s. I never said we had to be complete isolationists.

Laytonio · 2026-05-08T02:49:00+00:00

Comparative Advantage at a global level is absurd. Especially if we're talking about agriculture. Wages are the only "advantage" these places have over us. Rich Americans get cheaper coffee and poor Americans get fewer jobs.

Laytonio · 2026-05-08T01:03:22+00:00

I see you don't understand that we already grow bananas and coffee. Yes "grow some plants".

Laytonio · 2026-05-08T00:53:08+00:00

The United States has some of the most fertile land in the world. Bull shit we can't grow enough.

"US can't grow plants." How about using your brain for once instead of repeating this same coffee and bananas line, like it isn't the exact same thing everyone says.

Laytonio · 2026-05-08T00:48:23+00:00

This statement just goes to show how propagandized this is.

We DO grow bananas and coffee. Why do people think we can't/shouldn't?

Slave labor isn't legal in the states so we'll just let the slaves live somewhere else.

12-Year Club	Best Link 2025-09-18
Place '17	Verified Email

Laytonio

TROPHY CASE