Topic: informaton leak
Anonymous A started this discussion 14 hours ago #139,090
I do not trust computers anymore. they steal and sell our ideas, data, everything.
Anonymous B joined in and replied with this 14 hours ago, 20 minutes later[^] [v] #1,470,327
Ngl, if you don’t trust computers, I would highly recommend learning how computers work on a fundamental level. The fetch/execute cycle, assembly, CPU caching, memory management, explicit and implicit free lists, compilers, etc. If you have an understanding of how they work at a fundamental level, it makes a lot of the bs floating around these days easier to see through. They want people to think computers are just black boxes where magic happens on the inside. That’s why the AI idiots are pushing bs about computers being conscious or models being smarter than people.
Anonymous B double-posted this 14 hours ago, 3 minutes later, 24 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,470,328
And I’m not saying you have to know it enough to use it for anything, but having a vague conceptual understanding of what a computer actually does and how it works makes it incredibly obvious when people say dumb stuff about computers. Which given what they’re trying to push on us, is probably worthwhile. If in 10 years some idiot claims they’ve invented an AGI machine God, the only people who won’t believe in it will be the people who know anything about how computers work.
Anonymous C joined in and replied with this 14 hours ago, 21 minutes later, 46 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,470,333
@1,470,327 (B)
> Ngl, if you don’t trust computers, I would highly recommend learning how computers work on a fundamental level. The fetch/execute cycle, assembly, CPU caching, memory management, explicit and implicit free lists, compilers, etc. If you have an understanding of how they work at a fundamental level, it makes a lot of the bs floating around these days easier to see through. They want people to think computers are just black boxes where magic happens on the inside. That’s why the AI idiots are pushing bs about computers being conscious or models being smarter than people.
I fucking love this. I’ve been reading coding books and computer science texts, teaching myself Python. They want everyone to abandon programming and to become dependent on their models as if a predictive model based on nonlinear algebra is some holy Oracle at Delphi.
FFS, Anthropic employees were consulting with world religious leaders and begged the Pope to grant a computer model “personhood.” What the fuck.
> Ngl, if you don’t trust computers, I would highly recommend learning how computers work on a fundamental level. The fetch/execute cycle, assembly, CPU caching, memory management, explicit and implicit free lists, compilers, etc. If you have an understanding of how they work at a fundamental level, it makes a lot of the bs floating around these days easier to see through. They want people to think computers are just black boxes where magic happens on the inside. That’s why the AI idiots are pushing bs about computers being conscious or models being smarter than people.
I fucking love this. I’ve been reading coding books and computer science texts, teaching myself Python. They want everyone to abandon programming and to become dependent on their models as if a predictive model based on nonlinear algebra is some holy Oracle at Delphi.
FFS, Anthropic employees were consulting with world religious leaders and begged the Pope to grant a computer model “personhood.” What the fuck.
Anonymous B replied with this 13 hours ago, 10 minutes later, 56 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,470,336
@previous (C)
Honestly, I’m probably weird, but when I’m working on my own projects, I still write everything by hand. I use AI sometimes but I end up rewriting it because the AI generated code looks so sloppy.
Honestly, I’m probably weird, but when I’m working on my own projects, I still write everything by hand. I use AI sometimes but I end up rewriting it because the AI generated code looks so sloppy.
Anonymous C replied with this 13 hours ago, 1 minute later, 58 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,470,338
@previous (B)
> Honestly, I’m probably weird, but when I’m working on my own projects, I still write everything by hand. I use AI sometimes but I end up rewriting it because the AI generated code looks so sloppy.
You’re doing your job as final reviewer. I do basic stuff with Python to connect disparate databases, and some other easy use tools. Problem is, once you feed management real insights there’s still a human decision lag to seize some very transitory advantages.
> Honestly, I’m probably weird, but when I’m working on my own projects, I still write everything by hand. I use AI sometimes but I end up rewriting it because the AI generated code looks so sloppy.
You’re doing your job as final reviewer. I do basic stuff with Python to connect disparate databases, and some other easy use tools. Problem is, once you feed management real insights there’s still a human decision lag to seize some very transitory advantages.
Anonymous B replied with this 13 hours ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,470,340
I am glad that the pope was smart enough to see straight through the consciousness thing.
Anonymous B double-posted this 13 hours ago, 3 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,470,344
@1,470,338 (C)
It is genuinely useful as a tool but it’s also not perfect. Tech companies sometimes have events at my university. Apparently software engineers at companies like Google and Microsoft still have that issue where AI will say a library has some method that doesn’t actually exist very confidently.
It is genuinely useful as a tool but it’s also not perfect. Tech companies sometimes have events at my university. Apparently software engineers at companies like Google and Microsoft still have that issue where AI will say a library has some method that doesn’t actually exist very confidently.
(Edited 1 minute later.)
Anonymous B triple-posted this 13 hours ago, 44 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,470,345
So even at the big tech companies, the models are still hallucinating.
Anonymous D joined in and replied with this 13 hours ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,470,346
@1,470,340 (B)
It makes sense, if no one can come up with a scientific test to show that humans have something machines don't, then it must be within the realm of faith
It makes sense, if no one can come up with a scientific test to show that humans have something machines don't, then it must be within the realm of faith
Anonymous B replied with this 13 hours ago, 2 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,470,347
@previous (D)
Computer memory is just a really long list of numbers. If you think that you can simulate consciousness by performing operations on a list of numbers, idk what to tell you, but intuitively, that makes zero sense to me.
Computer memory is just a really long list of numbers. If you think that you can simulate consciousness by performing operations on a list of numbers, idk what to tell you, but intuitively, that makes zero sense to me.
Anonymous B double-posted this 13 hours ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,470,348
Because like, technically, if you had an endless amount of time and you were immortal, anything a computer can do, you could do with a pen and paper if given enough time. Can a pen and paper be conscious? I don’t know about that.
Anonymous D replied with this 13 hours ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,470,349
@1,470,347 (B)
Why do you never just flip it and see if that actually works?
"Human memory is just a lot of cells, how can that simulate consciousness?"
And "I know I'm conscious so it's different" doesn't solve this. It would be like two organic alien races meeting, and one decides the other can't be conscious be they only have private access to their own thoughts (confirming their species) but not the other aliens.
Why do you never just flip it and see if that actually works?
"Human memory is just a lot of cells, how can that simulate consciousness?"
And "I know I'm conscious so it's different" doesn't solve this. It would be like two organic alien races meeting, and one decides the other can't be conscious be they only have private access to their own thoughts (confirming their species) but not the other aliens.
Anonymous D double-posted this 13 hours ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,470,350
@1,470,348 (B)
I could do the same by handwriting what cells do.
Again, you failed to flip it and see if it works.
I could do the same by handwriting what cells do.
Again, you failed to flip it and see if it works.
Anonymous B replied with this 13 hours ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,470,351
These are really bad arguments.
Anonymous B double-posted this 13 hours ago, 2 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,470,352
Neural networks rely primarily on matrix multiplication, I’ve done that by hand before. If consciousness could emerge from matrix multiplication, that’s like saying when I was multiplying matrices a primitive form of consciousness was emerging from the sheet of paper I was writing on. That doesn’t make sense.
Anonymous D replied with this 13 hours ago, 27 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,470,353
@1,470,351 (B)
Do you understand the difference between showingthat an argument is bad, vs just saying it is?
Do you understand the difference between showingthat an argument is bad, vs just saying it is?
Anonymous B replied with this 13 hours ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,470,354
Symbol manipulation isn’t a form of consciousness. Symbols are abstract concepts and have no inherent meaning outside of the meaning we assign to them in our own heads. LLMs aren’t conscious, they’re software running on inanimate objects that don’t think or possess any intelligence.
Anonymous D replied with this 13 hours ago, 21 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,470,355
@1,470,352 (B)
So can we prove neurons aren't capable of consciousness by manually writing down on paper each step of how they work, and simulating a brain that way?
If not, this isn't an actual test. You can do it to both.
So can we prove neurons aren't capable of consciousness by manually writing down on paper each step of how they work, and simulating a brain that way?
If not, this isn't an actual test. You can do it to both.
Anonymous B replied with this 13 hours ago, 13 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,470,356
Anonymous D replied with this 13 hours ago, 3 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,470,357
@1,470,354 (B)
Let's say you're an alien looking at a human and advanced AI bot from the near future.
How do you tell which has real meaning in it, and which are just symbols being manipulated?
Let's say you're an alien looking at a human and advanced AI bot from the near future.
How do you tell which has real meaning in it, and which are just symbols being manipulated?
Anonymous D double-posted this 13 hours ago, 2 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,470,358
@1,470,356 (B)
Saying you're right, saying I'm wrong, saying "that is a bad argument", and saying "you're delusional" are not actual arguments.
The arguments you give are always either applying to both or neither.
You don't seem to understand what an actual argument is or what scientific tests are.
Your feelings and faith are not the same as a scientific conclusion.
It's fine to have a faith, but pretending a belief is scientific when you can't meet the criteria for a scientific conclusion is an actual misunderstanding.
Saying you're right, saying I'm wrong, saying "that is a bad argument", and saying "you're delusional" are not actual arguments.
The arguments you give are always either applying to both or neither.
You don't seem to understand what an actual argument is or what scientific tests are.
Your feelings and faith are not the same as a scientific conclusion.
It's fine to have a faith, but pretending a belief is scientific when you can't meet the criteria for a scientific conclusion is an actual misunderstanding.
Anonymous E joined in and replied with this 13 hours ago, 9 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,470,360
Anonymous E double-posted this 13 hours ago, 2 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,470,361
@1,470,355 (D)
> So can we prove neurons aren't capable of consciousness by manually writing down on paper each step of how they work, and simulating a brain that way?
No we can’t because you can’t write down each step of how neurons work because neurons don’t communicate using discrete values that can be written down on a sheet of paper.
> So can we prove neurons aren't capable of consciousness by manually writing down on paper each step of how they work, and simulating a brain that way?
No we can’t because you can’t write down each step of how neurons work because neurons don’t communicate using discrete values that can be written down on a sheet of paper.
Anonymous D replied with this 13 hours ago, 5 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,470,362
@1,470,360 (E)
There are humans that will just repeat what they're told too, it doesn't mean that humans aren't conscious.
@previous (E)
If you're trying to say the 0.0000001 inch of a movement could affect how it works you are still forgetting to flip it.
Remember when you were trying to use quantum tunnelling as an argument until I pointed out that transistors were much more likely to be affected?
So it's again, both.
There are humans that will just repeat what they're told too, it doesn't mean that humans aren't conscious.
@previous (E)
If you're trying to say the 0.0000001 inch of a movement could affect how it works you are still forgetting to flip it.
Remember when you were trying to use quantum tunnelling as an argument until I pointed out that transistors were much more likely to be affected?
So it's again, both.
Anonymous E replied with this 13 hours ago, 58 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,470,363
Now you can approximate the behavior of neurons, which is what perceptrons were invented as. That’s what neural networks rely on. However, they were based on what our understanding of neuron was in the 1950s which is actually not an accurate description of the true complexity or range of computations that can be performed by biological neurons.
Anonymous E double-posted this 13 hours ago, 37 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,470,364
For instance, a single individual biological neuron can compute XOR but a perceptron can’t.
Anonymous D replied with this 13 hours ago, 3 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,470,365
@1,470,363 (E)
@previous (E)
Ok, but you're not claiming XOR computability is the key factor, right? so you still haven't come up with a meaningful scientific test.
@previous (E)
Ok, but you're not claiming XOR computability is the key factor, right? so you still haven't come up with a meaningful scientific test.
Anonymous E replied with this 13 hours ago, 2 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,470,366
@previous (D)
Whatever I say, you’re always just going to ignore it and then ask another question because you want to believe that computers are conscious.
Whatever I say, you’re always just going to ignore it and then ask another question because you want to believe that computers are conscious.
Anonymous E double-posted this 12 hours ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,470,368
@1,470,362 (D)
This is such a poor understanding of probability. If quantum tunneling happened a statistically significant amount inside of a computer, the computer would not work.
This is such a poor understanding of probability. If quantum tunneling happened a statistically significant amount inside of a computer, the computer would not work.
Anonymous D replied with this 12 hours ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,470,369
@1,470,366 (E)
> Whatever I say, you’re always just going to ignore it
This is just a plain lie.
If I ignored one of your test examples, and didn't respond at all, name it now. Give a link to that post then.
We both know I actually take the time to respond, don't be a dick.
> and then ask another question because you want to believe that computers are conscious.
It's always the same question, if you are claiming it's scientific to believe this, give your scientific test.
I'll even say it's possible your intuition or faith is right, but even if that were the case, you never made it a scientific conclusion because you couldn't name a test that *distinguishes* the two in that way. You have listed dozens of tests that give the same result for both, and then abandoned each test after I refuted it to call me names or to throw out another random test that applies to both.
> Whatever I say, you’re always just going to ignore it
This is just a plain lie.
If I ignored one of your test examples, and didn't respond at all, name it now. Give a link to that post then.
We both know I actually take the time to respond, don't be a dick.
> and then ask another question because you want to believe that computers are conscious.
It's always the same question, if you are claiming it's scientific to believe this, give your scientific test.
I'll even say it's possible your intuition or faith is right, but even if that were the case, you never made it a scientific conclusion because you couldn't name a test that *distinguishes* the two in that way. You have listed dozens of tests that give the same result for both, and then abandoned each test after I refuted it to call me names or to throw out another random test that applies to both.
Anonymous D double-posted this 12 hours ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,470,370
@1,470,368 (E)
LOL, YOU were the one that tried making the argument that quantum tunelling could be responsible for consciousness.
All I did was point out that it's more likely to affect transistors than neurons after you yourself pointed out it is exponentially less likely to happen at greater distances.
LOL, YOU were the one that tried making the argument that quantum tunelling could be responsible for consciousness.
All I did was point out that it's more likely to affect transistors than neurons after you yourself pointed out it is exponentially less likely to happen at greater distances.
Anonymous E replied with this 12 hours ago, 6 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,470,371
By the way, a perceptron inside of a neural network is basically a stateless function that produces an output from a weighted sum of inputs. An individual biological neuron can fire spontaneously and also learn temporal patterns. Perceptrons can only learn patterns of simultaneous inputs, they aren’t aware of patterns in time.
Anonymous E double-posted this 12 hours ago, 2 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,470,374
If you understand how neurons work or how computers work, I just don’t see how any intelligent person would believe that something that’s so obviously inferior to biological neurons in so many ways and lacks so many features that are present in biological neurons is in any way comparable to biological neurons. Neural networks aren’t simulations of biology, they’re a separate thing that was inspired by a deeply flawed and shallow understanding of nature.
Anonymous D replied with this 12 hours ago, 13 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,470,375
@1,470,371 (E)
So no, you can't show the argument I ignored?
And you're just going to move on, and act like you didn't come up with the tunnelling theory and then pretend I did when it failed?
So no, you can't show the argument I ignored?
And you're just going to move on, and act like you didn't come up with the tunnelling theory and then pretend I did when it failed?
Anonymous D double-posted this 12 hours ago, 36 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,470,376
@1,470,374 (E)
Saying "I just can't believe" isn't an argument.
You clearly don't understand what either an argument or scientific test is.
Saying "I just can't believe" isn't an argument.
You clearly don't understand what either an argument or scientific test is.
Anonymous E replied with this 12 hours ago, 5 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,470,377
Anonymous E double-posted this 12 hours ago, 2 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,470,378
@1,470,370 (D)
> All I did was point out that it's more likely to affect transistors than neurons after you yourself pointed out it is exponentially less likely to happen at greater distances.
I’ve already told you multiple times that this is wrong. Neurons are larger than transistors but transistors are the most fundamental unit of computation inside computers, neurons are not the most fundamental unit of computation inside of brains. Neurons are made from proteins which are constructed from individual atoms which are significantly smaller than transistors.
> All I did was point out that it's more likely to affect transistors than neurons after you yourself pointed out it is exponentially less likely to happen at greater distances.
I’ve already told you multiple times that this is wrong. Neurons are larger than transistors but transistors are the most fundamental unit of computation inside computers, neurons are not the most fundamental unit of computation inside of brains. Neurons are made from proteins which are constructed from individual atoms which are significantly smaller than transistors.
Anonymous D replied with this 12 hours ago, 3 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,470,379
@1,470,377 (E)
You said I ignored a point you made, but can't say what it was.
Claiming I did something, without any specifics, is how you always devolve when you run out of arguments to try.
You said I ignored a point you made, but can't say what it was.
Claiming I did something, without any specifics, is how you always devolve when you run out of arguments to try.
Anonymous E replied with this 12 hours ago, 55 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,470,380
Idk what your problem is, but you’re incredibly annoying.
Anonymous D replied with this 12 hours ago, 1 minute later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,470,381
@1,470,378 (E)
Wait, so now YOU ARE saying quantum tunnelling could work for neurons???
A moment ago you said it was a misunderstanding of probabilities.
And again you forgot to flip, because how can you say this only affects neuron components when there are equally sized components in a computer at a deep enough level???
Wait, so now YOU ARE saying quantum tunnelling could work for neurons???
A moment ago you said it was a misunderstanding of probabilities.
And again you forgot to flip, because how can you say this only affects neuron components when there are equally sized components in a computer at a deep enough level???
Anonymous D double-posted this 12 hours ago, 2 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,470,382
@1,470,380 (E)
Calling me annoying isn't an argument, and you still haven't said what I ignored. Funny, if I was ignoring it, then why do you have to keep it a secret? lol
And the neuron component argument was addressed in previous threads multiple times, and I just addressed it again in my last comment. Obviously I'm not ignoring it, because it's another easy to refute "flip it" counter.
Calling me annoying isn't an argument, and you still haven't said what I ignored. Funny, if I was ignoring it, then why do you have to keep it a secret? lol
And the neuron component argument was addressed in previous threads multiple times, and I just addressed it again in my last comment. Obviously I'm not ignoring it, because it's another easy to refute "flip it" counter.
Anonymous F joined in and replied with this 12 hours ago, 5 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,470,383
@1,470,381 (D)
> And again you forgot to flip, because how can you say this only affects neuron components when there are equally sized components in a computer at a deep enough level???
They’re not equally sized though, that’s what you keep ignoring. The smallest unit of complexity in biological organisms is smaller than transistors.
> And again you forgot to flip, because how can you say this only affects neuron components when there are equally sized components in a computer at a deep enough level???
They’re not equally sized though, that’s what you keep ignoring. The smallest unit of complexity in biological organisms is smaller than transistors.
Anonymous D replied with this 12 hours ago, 2 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,470,384
@previous (F)
Yet you haven't bothered to name that component?
Is the tactic here to be so vague I can't do the obvious and find a small component and show it's both?
Yet you haven't bothered to name that component?
Is the tactic here to be so vague I can't do the obvious and find a small component and show it's both?
Anonymous F replied with this 12 hours ago, 18 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,470,385
Have you ever taken a biology class in your life before? Have you ever looked into how they make computer chips? The level of complexity in biological organisms is much greater than the level of complexity in a computer chip. For one, cells have moving parts, computers don’t, they’re solid state. Proteins, DNA, RNA, lipids, etc. are all made from individual atoms. It doesn’t make sense that quantum effects wouldn’t be utilized in biology.
Anonymous D replied with this 12 hours ago, 1 minute later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,470,386
@previous (F)
You need me to tell you that there atoms in a computer?
What are you even doing?
You need me to tell you that there atoms in a computer?
What are you even doing?
(Edited 11 seconds later.)
Anonymous F replied with this 12 hours ago, 5 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,470,387
Do you have any idea how complex biological structure are at an atomic level?Anonymous F double-posted this 12 hours ago, 1 minute later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,470,388
Nothing humans have ever created comes anywhere near that level of complexity.
Anonymous D replied with this 12 hours ago, 15 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,470,389
@1,470,387 (F)
Processors are complex too, and one atom, or hell even one electron moving can change something.
"Flip it" still works.
If there was a difference that didn't work on both sides you would have said it from the start. You just keep stalling because you don't have any examples in mind.
Processors are complex too, and one atom, or hell even one electron moving can change something.
"Flip it" still works.
If there was a difference that didn't work on both sides you would have said it from the start. You just keep stalling because you don't have any examples in mind.
Anonymous F replied with this 12 hours ago, 50 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,470,390
And you keep asking me why I don’t have evidence and can tell you exactly which system is responsible for what inside of a neuron that leads to consciousness. Yeah, that’s because we’re not close to understanding that as a species.
Anonymous F double-posted this 12 hours ago, 1 minute later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,470,391
Anonymous F triple-posted this 12 hours ago, 49 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,470,392
Most of the complexity of processors is for performance optimization. An actual computer in theory isn’t very complicated.
Anonymous D replied with this 12 hours ago, 1 minute later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,470,393
@1,470,390 (F)
Ok, so then do we agree it's just intuition or faith at this point, and not an actual scientific conclusion?
Because that was my only point.
@1,470,391 (F)
Depends on how you measure complexity, but obvious computers are getting more complex fast and biology is slower to evolve than machines.
Would you change your mind if NVIDIA came out with a groundbreaking chip that was more complex than the human nervous system? Probably not, so why even use this as your standard?
Ok, so then do we agree it's just intuition or faith at this point, and not an actual scientific conclusion?
Because that was my only point.
@1,470,391 (F)
Depends on how you measure complexity, but obvious computers are getting more complex fast and biology is slower to evolve than machines.
Would you change your mind if NVIDIA came out with a groundbreaking chip that was more complex than the human nervous system? Probably not, so why even use this as your standard?
Anonymous D double-posted this 12 hours ago, 1 minute later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,470,394
@1,470,392 (F)
Most of human understanding comes down to Hebb's law. We have patterns of neurons for distinct events we observe, and then wire them together when they occur in the same time/place.
multiplying the number of neurons in larger mammals is sort of like scaling up processor cores (obviously not perfectly analagous).
Most of human understanding comes down to Hebb's law. We have patterns of neurons for distinct events we observe, and then wire them together when they occur in the same time/place.
multiplying the number of neurons in larger mammals is sort of like scaling up processor cores (obviously not perfectly analagous).
Anonymous F replied with this 12 hours ago, 35 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,470,395
@1,470,393 (D)
You mean a graphics card? Graphics cards generally have slower cores than CPUs and have fewer performance optimizations than CPUs when it comes to things like out of order execution, caching, and branch prediction. GPUs just have more cores and do more operations in parallel. It doesn’t make any sense at all to talk about a GPU being more complex than the human nervous system, it just shows you don’t know anything about computers.
You mean a graphics card? Graphics cards generally have slower cores than CPUs and have fewer performance optimizations than CPUs when it comes to things like out of order execution, caching, and branch prediction. GPUs just have more cores and do more operations in parallel. It doesn’t make any sense at all to talk about a GPU being more complex than the human nervous system, it just shows you don’t know anything about computers.
Anonymous F double-posted this 12 hours ago, 1 minute later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,470,396
@1,470,394 (D)
> multiplying the number of neurons in larger mammals is sort of like scaling up processor cores (obviously not perfectly analagous).
No it’s not, elephants, dolphins, and whales all have more neurons than humans do.
> multiplying the number of neurons in larger mammals is sort of like scaling up processor cores (obviously not perfectly analagous).
No it’s not, elephants, dolphins, and whales all have more neurons than humans do.
Anonymous D replied with this 12 hours ago, 52 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,470,397
Anonymous F replied with this 12 hours ago, 47 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,470,398
@previous (D)
I’m saying that it never will be more complex because making a faster GPU doesn’t require significantly increasing its complexity.
I’m saying that it never will be more complex because making a faster GPU doesn’t require significantly increasing its complexity.
Anonymous D replied with this 12 hours ago, 10 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,470,399
@1,470,396 (F)
Yes, and they are larger like I said.
All 3 are considered very smart relative to other species.
Yes, and they are larger like I said.
All 3 are considered very smart relative to other species.
Anonymous F replied with this 12 hours ago, 34 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,470,400
Anonymous D replied with this 12 hours ago, 17 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,470,401
Anonymous D double-posted this 12 hours ago, 29 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,470,402
Anonymous F replied with this 12 hours ago, 1 minute later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,470,403
@1,470,401 (D)
It’s a bad analogy having more neurons doesn’t make you smarter. There are counter examples to this. Homo sapiens don’t have the largest brains of any species of the genus Homo, but we outcompeted all the other species. Intelligence is not directly correlated with brain size, but height is directly correlated with brain size.
It’s a bad analogy having more neurons doesn’t make you smarter. There are counter examples to this. Homo sapiens don’t have the largest brains of any species of the genus Homo, but we outcompeted all the other species. Intelligence is not directly correlated with brain size, but height is directly correlated with brain size.
Anonymous D replied with this 12 hours ago, 1 minute later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,470,404
Anonymous F replied with this 12 hours ago, 10 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,470,405
@1,470,402 (D)
You said neuron count… which correlates with brain size across species of mammals. So you did say it, but maybe you just didn’t realize you were saying it because you didn’t know that.
You said neuron count… which correlates with brain size across species of mammals. So you did say it, but maybe you just didn’t realize you were saying it because you didn’t know that.
Anonymous F double-posted this 12 hours ago, 30 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,470,406
Anonymous D replied with this 12 hours ago, 1 minute later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,470,407
@1,470,405 (F)
It tends to scale up, but I never said that one factor is exactly equivalent.
@previous (F)
No, I'm inviting you to, since you are claiming biology is more complex.
It tends to scale up, but I never said that one factor is exactly equivalent.
@previous (F)
No, I'm inviting you to, since you are claiming biology is more complex.
Anonymous F replied with this 12 hours ago, 1 minute later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,470,408
@previous (D)
It is more complex. Anyone who’s ever taken a biology class before should come to that conclusion.
It is more complex. Anyone who’s ever taken a biology class before should come to that conclusion.
Anonymous D replied with this 12 hours ago, 53 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,470,409
I said scaling GPUs was like larger mammall brains.
Then you said no, and then told me one by one that both increased but not by much.
So it sounds like you just wrote out an explanation for why I'm right.
Then you said no, and then told me one by one that both increased but not by much.
So it sounds like you just wrote out an explanation for why I'm right.
Anonymous D double-posted this 12 hours ago, 27 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,470,410
@1,470,408 (F)
Both are more complex, and both give slight increase to ability.
@previous (D)
> I said scaling GPUs was like larger mammall brains.
>
> Then you said no, and then told me one by one that both increased but not by much.
>
> So it sounds like you just wrote out an explanation for why I'm right.
Both are more complex, and both give slight increase to ability.
@previous (D)
> I said scaling GPUs was like larger mammall brains.
>
> Then you said no, and then told me one by one that both increased but not by much.
>
> So it sounds like you just wrote out an explanation for why I'm right.
Anonymous F replied with this 12 hours ago, 22 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,470,411
@1,470,409 (D)
You proposed a hypothetical in which an NVIDIA GPU is more complex than the human nervous system which makes absolutely no sense.
You proposed a hypothetical in which an NVIDIA GPU is more complex than the human nervous system which makes absolutely no sense.
Anonymous F double-posted this 12 hours ago, 22 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,470,412
I don’t think people who work at NVIDIA would even say that.
Anonymous F triple-posted this 12 hours ago, 2 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,470,413
You know one of the great breakthroughs with artificial intelligence is protein folding.
How many proteins do you think have been folded inside your body for you to be alive right now? The most complicated things humans have ever made and we’re celebrating when we figure out how a few proteins fold. You have to be insane to say we’re even close to the level of complexity that exists in biology in terms of the complexity of our technology. That’s a ridiculous assertion.
How many proteins do you think have been folded inside your body for you to be alive right now? The most complicated things humans have ever made and we’re celebrating when we figure out how a few proteins fold. You have to be insane to say we’re even close to the level of complexity that exists in biology in terms of the complexity of our technology. That’s a ridiculous assertion.
Anonymous F quadruple-posted this 12 hours ago, 3 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,470,414
Or hey, something simple: healing. When you scratch your computer, it doesn’t heal itself. Do you have any idea how much more complex our technology would have to be to build a computer that can repair itself? Do you have any clue how outside the realm of plausibility that is in 2026?
Anonymous D replied with this 9 hours ago, 2 hours later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,470,456
Anonymous D double-posted this 9 hours ago, 2 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,470,457
@1,470,414 (F)
This isn't an argument against machine consciousness because hardware has become more complex with time.
At best it's an argument that machine consciousness will take longer to be achieved.
This isn't an argument against machine consciousness because hardware has become more complex with time.
At best it's an argument that machine consciousness will take longer to be achieved.
Anonymous G joined in and replied with this 8 hours ago, 42 minutes later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,470,463
Anon D is one of those stupid people who think they’re smart for some reason
