Parsani

joined 2 years ago
[–] Parsani@hexbear.net 1 points 2 years ago

No that's what he looked like as a kid

[–] Parsani@hexbear.net 3 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (2 children)

Seems like a terrible blindspot to ignore the centuries of philosophy trying to conceptualize this issue even without the hard neuroscientific data to back it in any concrete way (if that is ever even possible). Though STEMs aversion to philosophy isn't unusual.

Do they simply look for a purely mechanical account of consciousness that is removed from any environment? Do social relations in the production of (self) consciousness, identity and/or intelligence ever figure into it? How do AI researchers conceptualize AI/intelligence/consciousness/etc., or do they even try outside of finding the right combination of light switches? I guess I'm also asking, how the fuck do they even know what they are looking for without a concept of what it is?

I'm not in neuroscience or a related field, so I have little idea of what people are writing about this outside of the tech journalism drivel which is just marketing.

Have you read any of Negarestani's Intelligence and Spirit? He seems to be trying to formulate a way to even begin to think about what a general (artificial) intelligence could be conceptually, through Hegel, Kant, and what I assume are a bunch of analytic and scientific writers I know little about tbh.

[–] Parsani@hexbear.net 13 points 2 years ago

He just painted his feet to look like that

[–] Parsani@hexbear.net 62 points 2 years ago

cold hard science

kelly

[–] Parsani@hexbear.net 5 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (4 children)

Yeah, that is what my experience has been at times. Though at other times, the info the llm spit out was essentially accurate. In neither case does the LLM understand what it is saying though in the way a human does.

However, my question isn't about whether these programs are good at what they purport to be, but how ML/LLM projects conceptualize their relation to philosophy of consciousness, and (artificial) intelligence. And I don't mean in the tech blogger way, but in a way which engages with historical ideas around what intelligence and consciousness is (or even the difference between the two) and through that the problems/limitations on creating something which could actually be called intelligent or conscious. That's why I'm curious whether any of the AI researchers today have responded to Dreyfus as he wrote his work before the new ML/LLM systems.

[–] Parsani@hexbear.net 20 points 2 years ago

Can't believe it wasn't called c/cccccccccccccp

[–] Parsani@hexbear.net 2 points 2 years ago

liberalism

liberaliSSm

[–] Parsani@hexbear.net 21 points 2 years ago

This is a serious question. I don't want to be called "treat boy" in front of the whole class again

[–] Parsani@hexbear.net 4 points 2 years ago

ACAB includes Dangle

[–] Parsani@hexbear.net 28 points 2 years ago

Are these the DSA KKKarens I keep hearing about?

[–] Parsani@hexbear.net 16 points 2 years ago

Incorrect. This is a photograph and the baby is Engels.

view more: ‹ prev next ›