When people say that the model “understands”, it means just that, not that it is human, and not that it does so exactly humans do. Judging its capabilities by how close it’s mimicking humans is pointless, just like judging a boat by how well it can do the breast stroke. The value lies in its performance and output, not in imitating human cognition.
Help me understand what you mean by “reductionism”. What parts do you believe I’m simplifying or overlooking? Also, could you explain why you think being alive is essential for understanding? Shifting the goalposts makes it difficult to discuss this productively. I’ve also provided evidence for my claims, while I haven’t seen any from you. If we focus on sharing evidence to clarify our arguments, we can both avoid bad faith maneuvering.
Besides, that article doesn’t really support your statement, it just shows that a neural network can link words to pictures, which we know.
It does, by showing it can learn associations with just limited time from a human’s perspective, it clearly experienced the world.
When people say that the model “understands”, it means just that, not that it is human, and not that it does so exactly humans do. Judging its capabilities by how close it’s mimicking humans is pointless, just like judging a boat by how well it can do the breast stroke. The value lies in its performance and output, not in imitating human cognition.
Understanding is a human concept so attributing it to an algorithm is strange.
It can be done by taking a very shallow definition of the word but then we’re just entering a debate about semantics.
Animals understand.
Yes sorry probably shouldn’t have used the word “human”. It’s a concept that we apply to living things that experience the world.
Animals certainly understand things but it’s a sliding scale where we use human understanding as the benchmark.
My point stands though, to attribute it to an algorithm is strange.
I’m starting to wonder about you though.
Well it was a fun ruse while it lasted.
You don’t have to be a living thing to experience the world.
Yes you do unless you have a really reductionist view of the word “experience”.
Besides, that article doesn’t really support your statement, it just shows that a neural network can link words to pictures, which we know.
Help me understand what you mean by “reductionism”. What parts do you believe I’m simplifying or overlooking? Also, could you explain why you think being alive is essential for understanding? Shifting the goalposts makes it difficult to discuss this productively. I’ve also provided evidence for my claims, while I haven’t seen any from you. If we focus on sharing evidence to clarify our arguments, we can both avoid bad faith maneuvering.
It does, by showing it can learn associations with just limited time from a human’s perspective, it clearly experienced the world.