No. Wrong. Not a physical property. At all. This is completely the wrong way to describe it.
Consciousness is better described as an "emergent phenomenon". This is how serious researchers and academics define it.
Like I said in another reply to you, you really should go talk with a neuroscientist or cognitive psychologist. It sounds like you need to catch up quickly on the field of research.
Making left turns...stopping at red lights...these are success/failure criteria.
In contrast, having a favorite food, or an opinion on politics, or a preference on what should be considered the best movie from the 1990's, or what kind of music you want to blast on your stereo to listen to on your drive as you make your left turn...these are not success/failure criteria.
Because we're interested in the underlying properties of a physical system, eg., people, and this systems happens to be able to provide extremely poor models of itself (Q&A).
We're not interested in people's extremely poor self-modelling which is pragmatically useful for managing their lives, we're interested in what they are trying to model: their properties.
The same is esp. true of a machine's immitation of "self-reports". We're now two steps removed: at least with people they are actually engaged in self-modelling over time. ChatGPT here isnt updating its self-model in response to its behaviour, it has no self-model nor self-modelling system.
To take the output of a text generation alg. as evidence of anything about its own internal state is so profoundly pseudoscientific it's kinda shocking. The whole of the history of science is an attack on this very superstition: that the properties of the world are simply "to be read from" the language we use about it.
Every advancement in human knowledge is preconditioned on opposing this falsehood; why jump back into pre-scientific religion as soon as a machine is the thing generating the text?
Experiments, measures, validity, reliability, testing, falasification, hypotheses, properties and their degrees....
This is required, it is non-negotiable. And what we have with people who'd print-off ChatGPT and believe it is the worst form of anti-science
>We're not interested in people's extremely poor self-modelling which is pragmatically useful for managing their lives, we're interested in what they are trying to model: their properties.
>Experiments, measures, validity, reliability, testing, falasification, hypotheses, properties and their degrees....This is required, it is non-negotiable.
Whoa, whoah, whoah, hold on there.
Who says that Q&A in Psychological Research doesn't involve "Experiments, measures, validity, reliability, testing, falasification, hypotheses, properties and their degrees...."
?
Where are you coming from? Your responses don't sound very scientific. You don't sound like you're even aware of the different research methods within neuroscience and cognitive psychology. Your responses sound like someone who wants to be perceived as supporting a scientific approach, but doesn't understand how to actually do these things.
This is why I quized you and gave you the chance to respond about your issues with Q&A in psychological research. You just came back with surface level platitudes. which doesn't lend much confidence to the ideathat you have anything other prejudice.
Go talk to a neuroscientist, a cognitive psychologist, you need to catch up and quick if you want to speak on these topics.
> The whole of the history of science is an attack on this very superstition: that the properties of the world are simply "to be read from" the language we use about it.
This is something where I agree with you. Interestingly, non-naturalistic analytical metaphysics supposes it can do just that.
Philosophy is continuous with science in my view and hence in what words express
That is, in the use of words. Not in words as objects nor words as mirrors --/
this is the road to non-realist spiritualism
I don't have a problem with a person who maintains a non-scientific world view and with electrical AGI mumbojbo
But
of course, few do. They think that they're empiricists, scientists and in the side of some austere hard look at human beings
This is just anti-human spiritualism , it isn't science
what makes me vicious on this point is the sense of injury in what these ideas should be about. in my own mildly aristotleian materialist religion
How awful to overcome one long veil of tears, only to drape another one on -- these people are capable of seeing past human folly, but
fall right into another kind
it's disappointing--- we're animals which are both far much more than electric switches and far
less
this new electic digital spiritualism is a PR grift which i'd prefer dead
On the one hand, you express strong support for empiricism and the scientific method, but on the other, you express strong beliefs on how things must be without offering any empirical justification for them.
Thanks for providing some historical context. I'm familiar with RSS in the sense of providing a way to publish my own updates, I do that on willfennel.com as well.
I'm also using it (with newsboat) to "subscribe" to RSS feeds myself, but those aren't shared anywhere by me currently.
What I'm not aware of is what you're saying, that RSS is a way to let people know what content I'm consuming.
> The model that harryvederci is describing is exactly what the internet looked like prior to the rise of Facebook/Twitter, during the dawn of Web 2.0.
How was the "following" part of it implemented back then? Where would I find out what blogs you were following, if I looked at your own RSS feed?
After a quick search I haven't found a good example of a blogroll yet. Was this something that was added as a part of the html on a page?
I think an advantage of an endpoint with just the information (regardless of if that's in JSON, newline-separated plain-text, etc) would be that you could query them witout everyone and their mother having to create custom parsers. Think "consuming an API" instead of "surfing the internet in a browser". I believe webrings also fall into the "surfing" part, which is not what I'm going for here.
Here's an example of what ZeroGravitas mentioned.
This is a blog from the "old" Web2.0 days, when social media was nascent.
This old man still updates his blog almost daily with content that would have him banned on Twitter. He's one of the most insightful and inciteful voices in the world of advertising.
Yeah that definitely falls in the "surfing the internet" category, unless I'm missing a link to a bare list of sources he follows, so I don't have to write a parser.
I understand it can be annoying when people come up with things that have already been implemented, and for which standards exist. But so far I don't see how what I suggested with a "/following" endpoint is exactly like RSS.
Feels like Economics in undergrad, listening to professors repeat broken, oversimplified models that are so hilariously wrong in their assumptions that they have to invent entirely new definitions to deal with their own failings.
Who put the statistics nerds in charge of AI? Is this really the best we got? Chained probabilities? Gradient descent?
Like did the evolution of AI & ML research go like this?
> We're stuck. After decades of research, we've hit a dead end. All we're left with is a byzantine maze of IF/THEN statements. We cannot simulate intelligence using pure logic. We have failed.
> Ok but what if we throw in PROBABILITIES into a byzantine maze of IF/THEN statements??????
> "It's built into the task, not into the solution. "
Who says? Who's defining the task?
I promise I'm not trying to get too philosophical here, but this is a long-standing issue in all areas of Science - the tendency towards reductionism.
Keep turning the dials on the oscilloscope to try and eliminate the signal noise...but what if the noise itself is an essential part of the phenomenon you're trying to study and understand? You see where I'm going with this?
> "In practice it works much better than all the alternatives that we've tried."
I was waiting for someone to just come out and say "It's the best we got". I'll grant that it might be true, but I don't like it and I don't accept it.
For the first point - at least read what I wrote after the sentence you picked to quote, and try to address the example with unlocking the phone.
For the second point, read what I wrote before the sentence you picked to quote. Also, your not liking or accepting some result doesn't really change it.
This isn't how to argue in good faith, and it's overall not very productive for anyone involved.
Your example wasn't a good example. For starters, it's literally a binary decision to make (yes/no: is this jstx1 trying to unlock the phone?).
Most of the tough, interesting, challenging problems in this world don't boil down to binary decisions.
Second, facial recognition doesn't depend (inherently) on artificial intelligence. It's not a great example. It's not a truly interesting, tough problem. It's not in the realm of fuzzy logic, concurrency, periodic or aperiodic behavior, or nonlinear relationships.
Could a Neural Net do it faster? Yeah, sure, maybe. But so what? You have a quicker algorithm, a faster heuristic.
PaulHoule, on the other hand, gave a great example:
>For instance, where should a modern book on digital photography be filed in the library? Should it go in the 000's with computing? In the 700's under art? Or in the 600's with technology (an application of optics, electronics, etc.)
By that same logic, there is no such thing as "justice" and the entire legal system is a mirage? :)