"Prediction" is hardly more than another term for inference. It's the very essence of machine learning. There is nothing new or useful in this concept.
This is how you spot hype nonsense - claims that anything is analogous to human intelligence. Even absent all other objections, we don't understand the human mind well enough to make a claim like that.
You don't need to understand the human mind on a mechanistic level. You only need to examine how the whole organism learns, acts, and reacts to stimulus and situation.
Even something as simple as catching a ball is basically predictive. You predict where the ball will be along its arc when it reaches a point in space where you can catch it. Then, strictly informed by that prediction, you solve a problem of motion through space -- and some very simple-seeming problems of motion through space can't be cracked in a general case without a very powerful supercomputer -- to physically catch the ball.
That's a very simple example. The major component of what we call intelligence is purely predictive. Of course Bayesian inference also works the same way, etc.
> The major component of what we call intelligence is purely predictive
Then what is creativity? Creativity is not predictive and is the most important part of human intelligence, since it isn't about figuring out if a situation leads to good things, its about finding a new kind of situation that leads to good things.
Don't say "we do totally random things and try to predict those outcomes", there is nothing supporting that since we have tried that with computers and that doesn't result in creativity anything like humans, we don't know how human creativity works.
So we've got a temporal-spatial sense, a general predictive function, the capacity for abstraction, independent volition, and a sense of relational context.
Creativity shows up when an agent uses that predictive machinery not only to forecast immediate sensory consequences, but to (a) simulate many alternative internal models or actions (counterfactuals), usually in a self-directed way with an end or goal in mind, (b) predict how those alternatives will be interpreted by other agents or by itself in the future, and (c) select from those alternatives according to an intrinsic/extrinsic valuation that rewards novelty, surprise, utility, or aesthetic pleasure. In other words it's a form of guided meta-prediction.
From a very different perspective, the TRIZ guys have tried to figure out creativity, with results that are at least interesting. Ultimately, what they have to teach is that non-artistic creativity also takes certain characteristic forms.
> The major component of what we call intelligence is purely predictive.
Making more unfounded, nonsensical claims does not reinforce your first unfounded, nonsensical claim.
I'm sure statisticians would love it if the human mind were an inference machine, but that doesn't make it one. Your point of view on this is faith-based.
His view aligns both with a leading neuroscience explanation of the brain (predictive coding [1]) and with Active Inference / the Free Energy principle [2] from optimal control theory. A similar theory of intelligence, called H-JEPA (hierarchical joint embedding predictive architecture) [3] is also put forward by Yann LeCun, a major AI pioneer. Another AI pioneer, Jürgen Schmidhuber, subsequently criticized LeCun's theory, but not for being faulty, but for rehashing ideas published in several papers from the 1990s onward. [4]
The Bayesian brain model is an unfalsifiable, faith-based mechanism - as I alluded to in my previous comment.
Real science is done with it as a starting point, but it is not real science and claiming that it is an accurate representation of the human mind carries as much merit as claiming that "the soul" is what powers human intellect.
Ronaldo competes in a sport that has 250 million players (mostly for leisure purposes) worldwide, who often practice daily since childhood, and still comes out on top.
Are there 250 million AI specialists and the ones hired by Meta still come out on top?
Huh the pool being so small is exactly why they’re fought over. Theres tiering in research through papers and products built. Even if the tiering is wrong, if you can monopolize the talent you strike a blow to competitors.
> Surely chicken in your backyard can be kept without CO2 impacts with some effort.
I’m not sure this is possible, at least not in a typical yard or urban garden. According to one study[1] community gardens in and around cities emit six times the CO2 per serving compared to industrial agriculture. I assume this is roughly applicable to backyard gardens too. I wouldn’t be surprised if this isn’t applicable to livestock—which the study appears to have excluded—but also wouldn’t be surprised if the story is similar with chickens/livestock.
I imagine that even if it is less efficient to grow your chickens in the back yard, it might be possible to approach or exceed current industrial poultry farms in CO2 efficiency. My hunch is that if those farms get incentivized by penalties on CO2 production it would be impossible though.
Does that seem likely to make a difference? The study covered individual gardens as well. The low-tech gardening practices they mention sound exactly like backyard gardens.
Of course. The whole study is about cities, even the first sentences already make this very clear. It has nothing to do with normal gardens, nothing _at all_.
I may have missed the part in the paper which explains why a backyard garden is dramatically different in efficiency if said backyard is in a city versus the suburbs. Could you clarify or point me to the thing you’re referring to?
> - health risks can be minimal depending on the amount and type of meat you eat
Health risks from meat is an US-only issue. Here in Europe we have much stricter regulations on meat, so much so that American meat cannot be imported and cannot be sold here. IIRC (might be wrong on this) Canada doesn't allow importing US meat as well?
A while back, the EU relaxed restrictions on feeding animals to other animals in order to boost trade. Restrictions that were in place for good reason after the BSE crisis.
No. It generally doesn't matter where in the world cows are raised, the important point is the conditions. The health risks cannot be minimized because of antibiotic abuse (antibiotic "superbug" evolution) and pandemic virus evolution of cramming too many animals near people who care for them and wildlife.
> mass unethical treatment (assuming you do not mean the fact that animals are killed) is related to the conditions which are related to price
Source? I really don't buy that more expensive meat producers kill their animals that much more "humanely". And even if the killing was painless, you're still killing tens of animals per year for the sole sake of a tastier meal.
> health risks can be minimal depending on the amount and type of meat you eat
True.
> the CO2 impact again depends on the meat and conditions. Surely chicken in your backyard can be kept without CO2 impacts with some effort.
I trust you raise all the animals you eat, and don't feed them with imported grains? Don't be ridiculous.
> your very existence has a CO2 impact. By your own logic you have two choices …
You're basically telling anyone who's self-conscious about their environmental impact to kill themselves. Great.
I believe there's a good argument to be made, yes. This video [0] by a philosophy teacher convinced me of it. Unfortunately, it's in french so most here probably won't be able to enjoy it.
These come up every now and then, but are explicitly arguing against factory farming, not meat consumption in general. Factory farming is indeed immoral, but is a separate, but related issue to meat consumption.
philosophical viewpoint arguing that human beings are the central or most significant entities in the world. This is a basic belief embedded in many Western religions and philosophies. Anthropocentrism regards humans as separate from and superior to nature and holds that human life has intrinsic value while other entities (including animals, plants, mineral resources, and so on) are resources that may justifiably be exploited for the benefit of humankind.
It's hard to argue that we're not in some way unique when we're the only animals having this debate, and every other carnivore or omnivore (and many 'herbivores,' opportunistically) have no such qualms and happily eat all the other animals they possibly can.
- Pandemic virus evolution of viruses from complex people<->livestock<->wildlife interactions.
- Evolving antibiotic resistant bacteria since livestock are given most of the same compounds given to humans simply for economic advantage, and in some cases, to force-feed animals with unsuitable feed like too much corn in too short of a timeframe. Some CAFO farms, their cows would die if not given antibiotics. [0]
- Water, air, and soil pollution on a large scale. Liquid shit lakes that spread manure into the air with sprayers. Runoff from pesticides and fertilizer used to grow the corn, soybeans, etc. The list goes on.
And, yes, climate change, animal cruelty, and other concerns.. but like condoning genocides, nothing will be done about it because people want their fucking Costco-sized 40 pack of cheap hamburgers, BMW SUVs, and overwatered perfectly green grass and air conditioning set to 68 F / 20 C in Phoenix AZ.
This comment is the opposite of nuance. They literally argued that everything you do has a CO2 impact, therefore you either shouldn't try at all or should just kill yourself.
That's, like, the least nuanced and most caveman-brained take on climate change you could possibly develop.
Also: appealing to edge-cases as a distraction isn't nuance, it's derailing. I can find fucking exceptions to anything. ANYTHING. How many people in the West are growing their own chickens? Give me a fucking break man.
I‘m trying to find something resembling a reasoned argument in your comment, but there‘s nothing except profanity.
I did not point out exceptions and the chicken example is merely an illustration of one of my points.
And who says we are talking about the west? Plenty of comments in this thread are talking about pandemics, something that is not known to originate from western agriculture.
You know what‘s a caveman take? Thinking that there is any chance to convince a meaningful number of people to reduce meat consumption globally in the required time window (20-50 years) in a way that has any bearing on climate change (as opposed to the many steps being taken that actually work). That‘s a caveman take.
As you can see, the type of meat matters a lot. Cheese is doing worse than pork in this example (not sure I even believe this without more evidence yet). Non-meat sources of protein don‘t do very well: Tofu is just 2x better than poultry. Compare this to the giant bar for beef.
In short, yes, it would be theoretically possible to eliminate about 10% of global emissions if everyone everywhere stopped eating meat and replaced it with a balanced non-meat diet.
But such an outcome is not realistic.
This is my last comment on HN. It is sad what this corner of the internet has become.
> You know what‘s a caveman take? Thinking that there is any chance to convince a meaningful number of people to reduce meat consumption globally in the required time window
The "caveman take" I'm referring to is when you implied the correct solution to climate change is suicide.
It's a caveman take because I've heard it numerous times, and it lacks all nuance or thought. Yes, we emit CO2 by existing the way we do. We can improve our situation without going to extremes. This is a "perfect is the enemy of good" type thought process.
It's what I call an anti-solution. It doesn't solve anything, but it does completely halt the conversation and makes sure that other real solutions can't pop up.
> As you can see, the type of meat matters a lot. Cheese is doing worse than pork in this example (not sure I even believe this without more evidence yet). Non-meat sources of protein don‘t do very well: Tofu is just 2x better than poultry. Compare this to the giant bar for beef.
Okay, but none of this was in your original comment. You talked about raising chickens, which I appropriately clocked as a not real solution that isn't going to work.
Eating more chicken and less beef is good, I agree, and a reasonable solution. You should probably lead with that.
> Humans are tearing themselves apart and the only thing worth betting on is AI that can [...] end scarcity
Scarcity, wow...
- There is no scarcity in the rich world by historical standards.
- There is extreme poverty in large parts of the world, no amount of human intelligence has fixed this and therefore no amount of AI will. It is primarily not a question of intelligence.
- On top of that "ending scarcity" is impossible due to the hedonistic treadmill and the way the human mind works as well as the fact that with or without AI there will still be disease, aging and death.
> you could fix your car 40 years ago, but you can’t now, because of scaled corporate processes.
You can fix your car just fine - just not the electronics. And those were to a large degree added for safety reasons. It is due to the complexity that they are difficult or impossible to fix.
The electronics don't have any more complexity than any other computer system. If you can fix your PC you could fix your car's electronics. Except that they aren't documented. So then your service light comes on, and the car has all kinds of detailed information about why, but the manufacturer doesn't give it to you because they want you to take it to the stealership so they can pick your pocket or try to sell you a new car instead of fixing it yourself or taking it to an independent mechanic.
This isn't about the cost; they already pay the cost to write the documentation or software for their own dealerships. It isn't about other carmakers; any company large enough to actually make a car would have no trouble getting a copy of it from one of the dealers. The only reason it's not published on their websites is that they don't want the vehicle owners and independent mechanics to have it, which is spiteful and obnoxious.
> LLMs are not conscious because unlike human brains they don't learn or adapt (yet).
That's neither a necessary nor sufficient condition.
In order to be conscious, learning may not be needed, but a perception of the passing of time may be needed which may require some short-term memory. People with severe dementia often can't even remember the start of a sentence they are reading, they can't learn, but they are certainly conscious because they have just enough short-term memory.
And learning is not sufficient either. Consciousness is about being a subject, about having a subjective experience of "being there" and just learning by itself does not create this experience. There is plenty of software that can do some form of real-time learning but it doesn't have a subjective experience.
> To claim that LLMs do not experience consciousness requires a model of how consciousness works.
Nope. What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence. Hitchens's razor.
You know you have consciousness (by the very definition that you can observe it in yourself) and that's evidence. Because other humans are genetically and in every other way identical, you can infer it for them as well. Because mammals are very similar many people (but not everyone) infers it for them as well. There is zero evidence for LLMs and their _very_ construction suggests that they are like a calculator or like Excel or like any other piece of software no matter how smart they may be or how many tasks they can do in the future.
Additionally I am really surprised by how many people here confuse consciousness with intelligence. Have you never paused for a second in your life to "just be". Done any meditation? Or even just existed at least for a few seconds without a train of thought? It is very obvious that language and consciousness are completely unrelated and there is no need for language and I doubt there is even a need for intelligence to be conscious.
Consider this:
In the end an LLM could be executed (slowly) on a CPU that accepts very basic _discrete_ instructions, such as ADD and MOV. We know this for a fact. Those instructions can be executed arbitrarily slowly. There is no reason whatsoever to suppose that it should feel like anything to be the CPU to say nothing of how it would subjectively feel to be a MOV instruction. It's ridiculous. It's unscientific. It's like believing that there's a spirit in the tree you see outside, just because - why not? - why wouldn't there be a spirit in the tree?
It seems like you are doing a lot of inferring about mammals experiencing consciousness, and you have drawn a line somewhere beyond these, and made the claim that your process is scientific. Could I present you my list of questions I presented to the OP and ask where you draw the line, and why here?
My general list of questions for those presenting a model of consciousness are: 1) Are you conscious? (hopefully you say yes or our friend Descartes would like a word with you!) 2) Am I conscious? How do you know? 3) Is a dog conscious? 4) Is a worm conscious? 5) Is a bacterium conscious? 6) Is a human embryo / baby consious? And if so, was there a point that it was not conscious, and what does it mean for that switch to occur?
I agree about the confusion of consciousness with intelligence, but these are complicated terms that aren't well suited to a forum where most people are interested in javscript type errors and RSUs. I usually use the term qualia. But to your example about existing for a few seconds without a train of thought; the Buddhists call this nirvana, and it's quite difficult to actually achieve.
I think I already answered those above. I draw the line between 3 and 4, possibly between 4 and 5. I don't know for sure. But there are good reasons to hold this belief.
> the Buddhists call this nirvana, and it's quite difficult to actually achieve.
Not really. The zen buddhists call what I described kensho and it's not very hard to achieve. I specifically said a few seconds. Probably anyone who wholeheartedly meditated for some time has experienced this.
Nirvana, on the other hand, is just the other side of practice-and-enlightenment as a drawn out process. You may call it hard to achieve, others may call it the dharma gate of ease and joy.
This is actually not comparable, because the brain has a much more complex structure that is _not_ learned, even at that level. The proteins and their structure are not a result of training. The fixed part for LMMs is rather trivial and is, in fact, not much for than MatMul which is very easy to understand - and we do. The fixed part of the brain, including the structure of all the proteins is enormously complex which is very difficult to understand - and we don't.
