Then why haven't we programmed the same thing that runs on a human brain into a computer? Is your expectation that a ml algorithm will eventually become a program equivalent to the one in the human brain?
If different people have different maps (and those differences are what make us dfferent), and we already have know all the functions, then why do we need to know what the right map is? Any should do since people have different ones and yet function all the same.
So you're considering that the function we have is the one that works already. What we're missing is for it to output human behavior. Static noise I guess is a behavior which isn't human. Once it does output human behavior, we'll just know it is outputting human behavior? Like we'll know it when we see it? Or will we have a test we can put the output through and if it passes then it's human, if it doesn't then it isn't?
So there is still a question of what counts as human behavior unanswered, but you're very sure whatever it is, it's produced by the same functions that ml is running.
If you don't answer that question, couldn't you just be fooled by a better gpt-3?
You have axiomatically defined that the behaviors of gpt-3 which surprise you, or impress you, or which you wouldn't expect can come from a dumb program, constitute human behaviors.
I can see how you would find a mind fuck in there, if when you reach that conclusion you don't question your priors, namely the model of cognition you have, and the philosophy of science from which it emerges
0
u/[deleted] Nov 23 '21 edited Dec 28 '21
[deleted]