Lee B. Cyrano
@leebriskcyrano.bsky.social
what the hell are you talking about
June 21, 2025 at 11:39 PM
what the hell are you talking about
i gather you didn't read the paper
June 21, 2025 at 4:12 AM
i gather you didn't read the paper
i'm working on a refutation of yudkowsky. would be interested to pick your brain on this stuff since I've gone through much less of it than you have
June 21, 2025 at 12:53 AM
i'm working on a refutation of yudkowsky. would be interested to pick your brain on this stuff since I've gone through much less of it than you have
naturally, without actual meditation practice this is a deeply unsatisfying answer for many people
June 20, 2025 at 8:15 PM
naturally, without actual meditation practice this is a deeply unsatisfying answer for many people
you may think: "i am not just pattern matching! i am thinking!"
the Buddhists squared this problem through dependent origination, which shares a lot of similarities with Hume's philosophy on causality.
it's all empty
the Buddhists squared this problem through dependent origination, which shares a lot of similarities with Hume's philosophy on causality.
it's all empty
June 20, 2025 at 8:12 PM
you may think: "i am not just pattern matching! i am thinking!"
the Buddhists squared this problem through dependent origination, which shares a lot of similarities with Hume's philosophy on causality.
it's all empty
the Buddhists squared this problem through dependent origination, which shares a lot of similarities with Hume's philosophy on causality.
it's all empty
But this presupposes a distinct mental realm, a "finish line" where neural impulses turn into abstractions which interact and compose.
There is no such mental realm. It's just nature
There is no such mental realm. It's just nature
June 20, 2025 at 8:00 PM
But this presupposes a distinct mental realm, a "finish line" where neural impulses turn into abstractions which interact and compose.
There is no such mental realm. It's just nature
There is no such mental realm. It's just nature
You're taking what is known in cognitive science as a "representationalist" view. That a cognitive system must form a "mental model" of "concepts" to be truly thinking as opposed to pure mechanism.
June 20, 2025 at 8:00 PM
You're taking what is known in cognitive science as a "representationalist" view. That a cognitive system must form a "mental model" of "concepts" to be truly thinking as opposed to pure mechanism.
The actual paper is quite short and legible. I would encourage you to take a look:
courses.cs.umbc.edu/471/papers/t...
By unfalsifiability, I mean there is no way to tell from the outside if a machine is truly "thinking" or merely "simulating thinking."
courses.cs.umbc.edu/471/papers/t...
By unfalsifiability, I mean there is no way to tell from the outside if a machine is truly "thinking" or merely "simulating thinking."
June 20, 2025 at 7:52 PM
The actual paper is quite short and legible. I would encourage you to take a look:
courses.cs.umbc.edu/471/papers/t...
By unfalsifiability, I mean there is no way to tell from the outside if a machine is truly "thinking" or merely "simulating thinking."
courses.cs.umbc.edu/471/papers/t...
By unfalsifiability, I mean there is no way to tell from the outside if a machine is truly "thinking" or merely "simulating thinking."
His 1950 paper, "Computing Machinery and Intelligence" is famous for the "Turing test."
Many people think this is the test for whether a machine is thinking or not, but that's a misconception. Simple chatbots like ELIZA were passing in the 1960's.
The point is to demonstrate unfalsifiability.
Many people think this is the test for whether a machine is thinking or not, but that's a misconception. Simple chatbots like ELIZA were passing in the 1960's.
The point is to demonstrate unfalsifiability.
June 20, 2025 at 7:51 PM
His 1950 paper, "Computing Machinery and Intelligence" is famous for the "Turing test."
Many people think this is the test for whether a machine is thinking or not, but that's a misconception. Simple chatbots like ELIZA were passing in the 1960's.
The point is to demonstrate unfalsifiability.
Many people think this is the test for whether a machine is thinking or not, but that's a misconception. Simple chatbots like ELIZA were passing in the 1960's.
The point is to demonstrate unfalsifiability.
Merriam Webster is no help here. It just kicks the can down the road. What is intellect? What is knowledge?
I've been obtuse so far but I'll try and engage in good faith: the question of "can machines think" is ill-posed, as Turing pointed out
I've been obtuse so far but I'll try and engage in good faith: the question of "can machines think" is ill-posed, as Turing pointed out
June 20, 2025 at 7:49 PM
Merriam Webster is no help here. It just kicks the can down the road. What is intellect? What is knowledge?
I've been obtuse so far but I'll try and engage in good faith: the question of "can machines think" is ill-posed, as Turing pointed out
I've been obtuse so far but I'll try and engage in good faith: the question of "can machines think" is ill-posed, as Turing pointed out
i'm very confident we disagree on our definitions of "understanding"
June 20, 2025 at 5:13 AM
i'm very confident we disagree on our definitions of "understanding"
irony typically falls under pragmatics, which is quite concrete. you're talking about a contextual understanding, not an abstract one
June 20, 2025 at 5:09 AM
irony typically falls under pragmatics, which is quite concrete. you're talking about a contextual understanding, not an abstract one
it's not for everyone.
this is by no means a rigorous argument but it's incredible how you can build a computer out of basically anything.
my favorite example is the logic gate made out of crabs
wpmedia.wolfram.com/sites/13/201...
this is by no means a rigorous argument but it's incredible how you can build a computer out of basically anything.
my favorite example is the logic gate made out of crabs
wpmedia.wolfram.com/sites/13/201...
June 19, 2025 at 9:02 PM
it's not for everyone.
this is by no means a rigorous argument but it's incredible how you can build a computer out of basically anything.
my favorite example is the logic gate made out of crabs
wpmedia.wolfram.com/sites/13/201...
this is by no means a rigorous argument but it's incredible how you can build a computer out of basically anything.
my favorite example is the logic gate made out of crabs
wpmedia.wolfram.com/sites/13/201...
it's all computer!
June 19, 2025 at 8:44 PM
it's all computer!