Mastodawn

Jay Jul 16

@Eatsbluecrayon Another demonstration would be to bring a chessboard to class, along with extra pieces, and have the class play chess with an AI of their choosing. They’ll get to watch with their own eyes as the AI fabricates positions and pieces.

This is especially useful because computers have been beating human opponents at chess for a long time now, so people know that chess is something computers can do. That an AI can’t indicates it is worse than its predecessors.

Szabó Em, Shrimp Borg

Jul 16

@WhiteCatTamer @Eatsbluecrayon that's cause it's not an AI, but a really fancy autocorrect. DeepBlue and the like were probability machines using complex computational algorithms and ChatGPT just strings words together that make some kind of grammatical sense, in which grammer =! logic. The mistake that people are falling for is the thought that language is mathematical. It is not. Language is culture, which cannot be summed up through math and numbers. Culture is the synthesis of human emotion and connection. No machine can replicate that. Ever.

@jadedtwin @WhiteCatTamer @Eatsbluecrayon

altruios phasma Jul 16

If you don’t believe everything can be expressed in numbers then consequently you must believe there is some “magic” in which numbers are meaningless.

That simply isn’t the case. From the count of neurons firing, to their relations and positions: every “emotion” can be described with numbers.

Magic or numbers. That’s the choice.

Thus: language is math (numbers encoded).

Jonah Gibberish Jul 16

@altruios You've confused the map for the territory.

@jonahgibberish
Signals/waves are still describable by numbers, even as the note paper representing them also can be describe with numbers.

@altruios @jonahgibberish

AdeptVeritatis Jul 23

But there are no artificial numbers. They are just numbers. We can't create them.

And there is no artificial space. It is just space. We can't create it.

Some people say, there is artificial intelligence. But it is just intelligence. We can't create it.

Evolution sprouted beings, who show intelligent behavior. And those beings _procreate_ and die.
A computer program, stuffed with random human communication, doesn't even have an environment, it has to survive inside.

Hugh Simpson Jul 17

@altruios @jadedtwin @WhiteCatTamer @Eatsbluecrayon yes but also: maths is magic

@altruios @jadedtwin @WhiteCatTamer @Eatsbluecrayon

Eugene

Jul 17

Sounds like determinism.

> From the count of neurons firing, to their relations and positions: every “emotion” can be described with numbers.

As I remember, we can't do that because:

1) we still don't know how the human brain and consciousness works

2) On MRI we can see some common (for each human being) zones in brain, firing up when some common emotion occurs, thats all.

3) https://aeon.co/essays/your-brain-does-not-process-information-and-it-is-not-a-computer

Your brain does not process information and it is not a computer | Aeon Essays

Your brain does not process information, retrieve knowledge or store memories. In short: your brain is not a computer

Aeon

@evgandr @jadedtwin @WhiteCatTamer @Eatsbluecrayon

Regarding the brain not being a computer…
I get the articles point: but there’s some (willful?) blind spots in those arguments. Short form comments aren’t a way to have that discussion. I’ll get my thoughts together on that.

Of course I mean to say I don’t think humans can literally see or process that much info to that accuracy, if that wasn’t implicit. Laws of physics still apply.

@evgandr @jadedtwin @WhiteCatTamer @Eatsbluecrayon

DNAvinci Jul 18

@altruios
Reply guy here!
Neurogenomics!

There's absolutely no evidence that cognition can be ascribed to numbers, or any measurable chemical process.

Down to brass racks, if you pull that magical thinking in a neurobiology paper reviewers 1, 2, and 3 will kick you to the curb.

There just isn't any measurement to support any of that.
It might be useful as a model to thinking about cognition in machine terms. It's just not neurobiology.

joosteto Jul 17

@evgandr @altruios @jadedtwin @WhiteCatTamer @Eatsbluecrayon
True, *we* cannot describe every emotion by numbers.
That doesn't mean it is impossible.

@joosteto @evgandr @altruios @jadedtwin @WhiteCatTamer @Eatsbluecrayon yes it does. Prove me wrong.

@holdenweb @joosteto @evgandr @jadedtwin @WhiteCatTamer @Eatsbluecrayon

Let’s keep it dumbed down: here’s your proof.

1) Name an emotion.
2) I assign a number:
3) done. Infinite numbers means every emotion is represented a number.

It can be done…

The real issue is ordering the data sensibly.

@altruios @joosteto @evgandr @jadedtwin @WhiteCatTamer @Eatsbluecrayon yet another copout. You can’t say which emotion is associated with which number. You can’t even tell me whether the number of emotions is a countable or an uncountable infinity.

@holdenweb @joosteto @evgandr @jadedtwin @WhiteCatTamer @Eatsbluecrayon

It’s arbitrary: we choose the map.

We have only so many chemicals in our brains. The emotional state can be represented by the chemical balances of various neurotransmitters, product with the electrochemical state of the brain.

Humans may never be able to represent that level detail: I agree. But, in theory, it could be done.

@altruios @joosteto @evgandr @jadedtwin @WhiteCatTamer @Eatsbluecrayon so quantum phenomena play no role in your universe? Nothing is probabilistic? (Sorry if this seems like an inquisition, I find this genuinely interesting).

@holdenweb @joosteto @evgandr @jadedtwin @WhiteCatTamer @Eatsbluecrayon you are inserting… something into this conversation… and I don’t know what (bias) that is.

Probabilistic outcomes are described by numbers… what makes you think I would think otherwise?

It’s numbers all the way down.

@holdenweb @joosteto @evgandr @jadedtwin @WhiteCatTamer @Eatsbluecrayon also: I don’t think you are dumb or an asshole. Basic respect for a fellow human: regardless of if we see eye to eye on “numbers vs magic” :)

Eugene

Jul 24

@holdenweb @joosteto @altruios @jadedtwin @WhiteCatTamer @Eatsbluecrayon
Ugh, man, do you confused this social network with Twitter?

@evgandr @joosteto @altruios @jadedtwin @WhiteCatTamer @Eatsbluecrayon not for a moment, but education is important. Or should bullshit go unchallenged here?

@holdenweb @joosteto @altruios @jadedtwin @WhiteCatTamer @Eatsbluecrayon

Eugene

Jul 24

We don't share knowledge or start discussion in #fedi in such aggressive way

@evgandr @altruios @jadedtwin @WhiteCatTamer @Eatsbluecrayon

Jones Jul 18

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neural_Darwinism

Neural Darwinism - Wikipedia

@evgandr @altruios @jadedtwin @WhiteCatTamer @Eatsbluecrayon our brains DO process information - but it’s NOTHING like a computer, and don’t let anyone tell you it is.

Världens bästa Kille™Jul 17

@Eatsbluecrayon @jadedtwin @WhiteCatTamer @altruios

One would have to define what ”expressed in numbers” and ”described with numbers” mean. Is Pi a number? And if it is, does the symbol express it, or is it an expression for the inability to describe that function as a number?

But the main thing is this: Language has no fixed meaning. A symbol (like a word) is not one thing, but many. And it shifts.

Math doesn’t.

Världens bästa Kille™Jul 17

@jadedtwin @WhiteCatTamer @Eatsbluecrayon @altruios

I’m no mathematician, but language would be something like the n-body problem. In a sense it can be expressed as numbers, but it can’t be solved.

https://youtu.be/iErmK_sJtag?si=HaIk2FhXQ9BHNKe4

@thelovebing @jadedtwin @WhiteCatTamer @Eatsbluecrayon
It can be expressed as numbers. As you say: we agree? The meaning of words is a vector list of numbers. Here’s a video on the subject:

Word Embeddings: Word2Vec

YouTube

Världens bästa Kille™Jul 18

@jadedtwin @altruios @WhiteCatTamer @Eatsbluecrayon

I don’t do Youtube. If you have a point I’m sure you can make it yourself.

altruios phasma Jul 18

@thelovebing @jadedtwin @WhiteCatTamer @Eatsbluecrayon the video explains how you use math on language to encode meaning. Examples like “king - man = queen” relational vector math (where each word is a vector {list of numbers}). Word2vec is the keyword to research more.

Those numbers are variable, depending on the relational web of the vocabulary of the language, of course…

Level 98 🇺🇦Jul 19

@altruios @thelovebing @jadedtwin @WhiteCatTamer @Eatsbluecrayon Which has, as it should, a "limitations" section at the end... which only briefly covers the many limitations of such things.

"Context" is a massive one which changes from person to person, use to use let alone from culture to culture and then from language to language (while translation apps do a reasonable job, especially at the basics, they'll always fall down with e.g. more complex prose where the translation becomes opinion).

Världens bästa Kille™Jul 19

@jadedtwin @altruios @level98 @WhiteCatTamer @Eatsbluecrayon

Precisely. ”Queen”, for example, is a word that has (had) many meanings. ”Queen Kristina” of Sweden –again, an example– wasn’t a queen. She never married, and the word used to signify the spouse of a king. She was crowned a king, though. Which of course changed the meaning of those words, at least in Sweden, but not the same way then as it later did.

Världens bästa Kille™Jul 19

@level98 @altruios @WhiteCatTamer @jadedtwin @Eatsbluecrayon

It is enormously complex, chaotic even. And while every meaning of a word might be described in numbers (or a dictionary), those descriptions are not very exact (and that’s why translation is really hard, because it isn’t just about denotation).

Världens bästa Kille™Jul 19

@level98 @altruios @WhiteCatTamer @jadedtwin @Eatsbluecrayon Margritte explained this better than anyone, the proof thereof being that tech bros mostly don’t get the explanation.

Mees Jul 17

@altruios @jadedtwin @WhiteCatTamer @Eatsbluecrayon
I see this the other way around.

Humans use numbers to understand things. Every new thing is assigned measurements and studied. This helps a lot in understanding how everything works.

When studying something new, we start by assigning them and seeing how they behave. We need different rules for different processes.

The numbers are not the starting point, they are the way we try to make sense of things that are very complex. If we start with only numbers, we will not be able to figure out anything. We need to give the numbers meaning, and discover the rules behind them.

I'm reminded of Socrates. If you keep asking why, there will be a moment where you don't know. Why do things fall? Well, because of gravity. Why does gravity exist? Well, the earth's mass attracts more mass. This can be explained by diving into molecules and atoms and ions and neutrons and whatnot, but why are there atoms? And why was the big bang? And why does anything exist at all?

For us to assign numbers, we need to understand so much more. And a computer is bound by the logic we give it. Yes, it can make some things up by itself, but those things can be just as wrong as our age-old belief of the flatness of the earth. And the computer will lack knowledge we didn't know it needed. Or things we don't know ourselves.

The world is a magical place, and we are by no means done discovering and making sense of it. ❤️

🇨🇦🇩🇪🇨🇳张殿李🇨🇳🇩🇪🇨🇦Jul 17

@altruios @jadedtwin @WhiteCatTamer @Eatsbluecrayon This is a very strong statement. Presumably you can bring some equally strong evidence to the table to support it?

Or is this just an opinion?

@ZDL @jadedtwin @WhiteCatTamer @Eatsbluecrayon magic is the “strong statement” that needs evidence: as we have not interacted with anything that turned out to actually be magic.

My statement is merely: “if x then not y” which is enteirely more defensible than the concept of magic.

🇨🇦🇩🇪🇨🇳张殿李🇨🇳🇩🇪🇨🇦Jul 18

@altruios @jadedtwin @WhiteCatTamer @Eatsbluecrayon You have made the positive claim that everything can be defined in numbers. It is up to you now to substantiate that claim.

I'm waiting.

(I know I'm waiting in vain, but I'm still waiting. Your kind never substantiates their own grandiloquent claims. Oh, there's a number there! An implied "zero".)

@altruios @ZDL @jadedtwin @WhiteCatTamer @Eatsbluecrayon

Hakan Bayındır Jul 21

There's no concept of magic. The thing is, brain is not only fed by five senses in the body, and the sense and feedback loops are much more complicated, given brain receives signals from all organs in the body.

Hence, just modelling meaning with vectors, and creating a big LLM doesn't create anything close to consciousness or being human.

Brain-centric view only creates the dangers what Sci-Fi told us. A shell of emotions without them.

@altruios @ZDL @jadedtwin @WhiteCatTamer @Eatsbluecrayon

Hakan Bayındır Jul 21

I just want to add a simple example. Beta blockers can prevent anxiety, but not directly inside the brain. Mind panics, releases hormones, but the body can't respond since the pathways are blocked by the beta blocker.

Hence, since your heart rate doesn't go up and body doesn't tense-up, your brain doesn't get that response from your body, and you don't get anxious or panic.

So, without the bodily feedback, there's no emotion.

@altruios @ZDL @jadedtwin @WhiteCatTamer @Eatsbluecrayon unless someone demonstrates x and y …

@holdenweb @ZDL @jadedtwin @WhiteCatTamer @Eatsbluecrayon

I await to be surprised: I look forward to it…

I await proof of “magic”

@altruios @ZDL @jadedtwin @WhiteCatTamer @Eatsbluecrayon don’t hold your breath😉

@altruios @jadedtwin @WhiteCatTamer @Eatsbluecrayon Your claim is that "everything can be expressed in numbers". That is a positive claim that you must support or shut up about.

You say that this is more defensible than the concept of magic SO DEFEND IT! Don't keep yapping in circles like a demented dog chasing its tail in perpetuity.

Support your statement or shut up.

(You will note that I have not made any statement, positive or negative, of any kind. The burden isn't on me.)

@ZDL @jadedtwin @WhiteCatTamer @Eatsbluecrayon

Numbers are real, magic isn’t.

I can count to 10. NO ONE can use magic.

@altruios @jadedtwin @WhiteCatTamer @Eatsbluecrayon Two points:

1. ***I MADE NO CLAIM, MAGIC OR OTHERWISE. INDEED THE ONLY PERSON WHO FUCKING USED "MAGIC" IN THIS CONVERSATION IS YOU.***

2. Numbers are real are they? Show me the number 10 in nature then. Just the number, note. Not ten things. The number itself. Which you say is real.

You really suck at this, I should point out. You don't understand burden of proof and you make obvious contrafactuals like "numbers are real".

@ZDL @jadedtwin @WhiteCatTamer @Eatsbluecrayon

Do you feel better yet?

@altruios @jadedtwin @WhiteCatTamer @Eatsbluecrayon I'll feel better when you substantiate the claim or shut the fuck up.

@ZDL @jadedtwin @WhiteCatTamer @Eatsbluecrayon why does that irk you so?

@altruios @jadedtwin @WhiteCatTamer @Eatsbluecrayon Come back when you've got a substantive response that addresses the challenge. Now you're playing Kindergartner.

@ZDL @jadedtwin @WhiteCatTamer @Eatsbluecrayon matching tone

@ZDL @jadedtwin @WhiteCatTamer @Eatsbluecrayon like… if you want to talk to people and actually be persuasive: maybe don’t go in all hot and bothered…

@ZDL @jadedtwin @WhiteCatTamer @Eatsbluecrayon
Okay; maybe it’s a language thing.

Everything that is real can be measured in numbers or structure of numbers.
That is the statement I believe to be true.

True: I can’t “know” that.
But the counter example would literally be magic (a non-measurable thing having an effect of which we can measure) : which most of us agree doesn’t exist.

So unless you show me magic…

Level 98 🇺🇦Jul 19

@altruios @jadedtwin @WhiteCatTamer @Eatsbluecrayon Perhaps you've not read, or understood, Godel's Theorems etc.

Maths *is* amazing, for example, in being "unreasonably good" at describing the workings of the universe to incredible precision.

HOWEVER, as well as Godel, we also have hand-wavy math of QFT e.g. the "Yang–Mills existence and mass gap" Millennium Prize Problem.

Let alone struggles to describe "complex", "chaotic" etc. systems.

Maths limitations are as incredible as what it does.

@altruios @jadedtwin @WhiteCatTamer @Eatsbluecrayon numbers can encode language. This does not mean that language IS numbers. Correlation does not imply causality …

@altruios @jadedtwin @WhiteCatTamer @Eatsbluecrayon also remember that when you describe something numerically you can only do so within the accuracy limits of the numerical representation. There’s always going to be quantisation noise. The thing I like about analogue systems is to get from one value to another they have to go through all (an infinite number of) points in between.

@holdenweb
representation is doing lifting there…
I agree we cannot represent all the math correctly. Normal numbers are the bulk of numbers and they can’t be represented on the computer… Doesn’t mean normal numbers don’t exist.

Analog systems are still describable by numbers. Digitization is a different issue.

Our limits of representation are not the limits of numbers in the abstract.

You bring up good points, though. Quantization is an issue with representing numbers.

@altruios
Well yes, but my real point is that no matter how accurate the numbers you still can’t describe consciousness that way. But I doubt that will stop you trying🙂

@holdenweb you assert that it can’t be done.

Okay: asserted noted. Any actual argument or reason? (Other than it “feels/seems” like to can’t be done).

@altruios Sorry, it’s you who need to provide the argument and reason.