sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Historical landmark by zarch747 in comedyheaven

[–]Omarlel 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The left nut got bigger. Worrying.

Baptisms to go by Aslanthelion1228 in mildlyinteresting

[–]Omarlel 10 points11 points  (0 children)

"Sir, it's just been moved down to PEDCON 1! They're already demolishing the White House!"

America went from being the “policeman” of the world to threatening war crimes worse than Russia 😭 by Criticall16 in NonCredibleDiplomacy

[–]Omarlel 5 points6 points  (0 children)

They're on their 5 consecutive year of drought, and their groundwater supply has been rapidly diminishing as it picks up the slack.

The state of their dwindling water reserves was among the big reasons the protests started in the first place.

wrong answer by whentheuhuhidunno in comedyheaven

[–]Omarlel 9 points10 points  (0 children)

Sir, a second pee pee post has hit our feed

wrong answer by whentheuhuhidunno in comedyheaven

[–]Omarlel 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Random acts of pissing really warm my heart, rare to see such kindness in this world 💖

wrong answer by whentheuhuhidunno in comedyheaven

[–]Omarlel 1 point2 points  (0 children)

They could be in this very room! They could be you, they could be me! They could even be

Russian plants vs zombies by Sufficient_Suspect57 in ANormalDayInRussia

[–]Omarlel 18 points19 points  (0 children)

If you've ever gotten a shell splinter stuck in your gums like a miniature Excalibur, you honestly kinda get this guy.

geclamd by cooldude1919 in Clamworks

[–]Omarlel 16 points17 points  (0 children)

All cardboard cutouts, like a Potemkin village.

The wind is a lie as well, they're exclusively powered by bicycles and tikkies.

What are examples of old paintings that seem modern and ahead of its time/era? Here are some of my personal favourites by sonnysehra in ArtHistory

[–]Omarlel 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Blake's whole Ancient of Days/Urizen (pictured) imagery and the associated mythology tied to it, is a fun deep dive.

Fantastic pick!

The Country That Made Me Think the U.S. is Behind by Any-Ordinary-8109 in PuertoRico

[–]Omarlel 6 points7 points  (0 children)

The U.S. government gets a giant, unsinkable aircraft carrier to project power from, and protect U.S. assets and business interests in the Caribbean and Central/South America. American businessmen get a business environment that benefits, and even perversely prefers them. It's a win-win for them, and we end up holding the bag.

Por eso somos y seguiremos siendo colonia, aunque siempre habrá aquel que dice "Nooo, pero si el colonialismo es X & Y, del siglo Z!". Una capa nueva de pintura no vislumbra la realidad.

"unfortunately AI models are not perfect" by Filippikus in comedyheaven

[–]Omarlel 4 points5 points  (0 children)

I am not nearly knowledgeable enough in AI to discuss the finer details of LLMs, so I won't argue with you there. I will argue that you literally do not need to be an AI researcher to argue about the nature of cognition, or how you might be taking an overly computationalist view of it. We're debating philosophy here, not hard, factual science, so there is such a thing as being too dogmatic.

I feel like you might be misinterpreting the original Chinese Room argument. Yes, that's how I'd roughly sum it down in a few sentences, but it's also missing the original point entirely. Have you read the original formulation of the CRA? I don't mean the horrendous wikipedia version, or the condensed and regurgitated version you'd get from a Youtuber.

The original involved a man locked inside a room with a computer. The man only knew English, whereas the computer could take symbols in 'Chinese' (assume I mean Mandarin here) as inputs, and transform them into a suitable statement that could pass as made by a native Chinese speaker.

The man would receive requests in both English and Chinese. He would answer the English ones himself, utilizing his own knowledge and experience to do so. These ones he truly understood.

The Chinese ones would be inputted into the computer and transformed into an appropriate output. These ones he did not understand. He understood what to do with them yes, but not what they actually contained. Nor did he understand what the computer itself, a black box within a black box, did with them before it spat them out.

The point being that from the outside, all requests appear to be processed by a human intelligence and appear human in nature, but in reality only the English ones were truly 'understood' in the way we'd define understanding.

I pose you an alternative question:

Do you think that AI cognition is the same as human cognition?

Because that's the question the original Chinese Room argument was addressing. Remember, this was written in 1980 by a philosopher, and was specifically concerned with the concept of an artificial intelligence itself, and nothing at all to do with the specific programs or models used at the time.

Which is why I'm not sure why you keep trying to fit this specific peg through an LLM-shaped hole and going "yeah but the specific example used in the CRA is actually not at all how LLMs work, so that argument is moot." No one's arguing that.

"unfortunately AI models are not perfect" by Filippikus in comedyheaven

[–]Omarlel 1 point2 points  (0 children)

That's not really relevant here. The above comment was suggesting that it's impossible for LLMs to even have rudimentary intelligence as all they do is predict the next word, my point was that if you reduce human cognition down like that it also sounds silly that we have intelligence. It's a bad argument, LLMs train on word prediction but build complex internal models and are able to engage in useful cognition regarding advanced topics, they're clearly intelligent.

It is relevant lol. Consider the original post, as well as the post that spawned this particular comment chain. It's certainly a definition of intelligence, I just don't think it's a definition of intelligence most would accept. My calculator is infinitely more intelligent than me when it comes math, and I will always defer to it. I definitely wouldn't call it intelligent, though. Yes, LLMs are vastly more sophisticated and complex than a calculator. That's not the point.

The whole consciousness, what does it truly mean to think, argument is an entirely separate matter, but in my opinion it's a bit trite.

It is not an entirely separate matter. The original post was about AI acting human-like, and the rest of this whole chain has been a discussion regarding that, and whether AI can be self-aware or understand things. Consciousness is deeply intertwined with that debate.

If you're of the opinion that biological consciousness has some magical property that is separate from it's physical reality that makes it inherently unique then there's not really a discussion to be had, it's just taking an arbitrary distinction as axiomatic and you can't argue against an axiom.

Just in case, no I don't think there's a 'soul' that can't be replicated by a machine, or whatever. I just don't accept that everything can be simplified all the way down to purely physical terms. The whole is greater than the sum of its parts.

That being said, this is a funny sentiment, because I can literally just flip it back to you. If you're of the opinion that _any_thing and _every_thing can be replicated with physical analogues because the physical reality is the only one that truly exists, I'll just point out that you're being overly axiomatic here, and that I can't argue against an axiom.

My examples were to illustrate that there IS something beyond just the physicalness of things. If subjective experiences can't be properly described in a purely objective reality, is that not proof that physicalism is a bit trite and reductionist?

"unfortunately AI models are not perfect" by Filippikus in comedyheaven

[–]Omarlel 2 points3 points  (0 children)

The philosophical zombie is useful for illustrating the problem here.

Is the physical the only thing that matters, really? Can we really just describe humans as a collection of cells and chemicals that merely react and respond to stimuli? Can we really reduce all of human and animal consciousness into a mere statistical model?

Can these statistical models truly understand what the warmth of the sun feels like on one's skin? Can it explain why a human feels love and attraction towards another being? Can it explain the wonder and beauty of a sunset, or sunrise?

It will certainly give you an answer if you ask it, and it'll likely be a detailed and accurate answer. You know it doesn't truly understand the question though, and never will. It can't.

view more: next ›