@Redacted@lemmy.world avatar

Redacted

@Redacted@lemmy.world

This profile is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.

Redacted ,
@Redacted@lemmy.world avatar

Logic and reasoning preferably with scientific evidence.

Redacted ,
@Redacted@lemmy.world avatar

No they don't and agnosticism isn't an upgrade, it's just sitting on the fence.

Most athiests are agnostic to some degree and vice versa.

The burden of proof lies with the person making the extraordinary claim.

Redacted , (edited )
@Redacted@lemmy.world avatar

Now that you mention it, I'm not entirely convinced it is a fully coherent belief in its own right, more of a lack of wanting to enter the debate or a subcategory of atheism.

Shall we try it with unicorns? Unicorn believer says they saw a unicorn.

Atheist viewpoint would say something along the lines of "To persuade me they exist I'd need to see one in the flesh or at the very least a full anatomical breakdown of how their magical properties work with corroboration from other unicorn enthusiasts."

The agnostic standpoint is what exactly? "We can't know whether unicorns exist or not so there's no point discussing it."?

Redacted ,
@Redacted@lemmy.world avatar

Mind if I take some of your income to fund my unicorn sanctuary instead of improving tangible public services?

Redacted , (edited )
@Redacted@lemmy.world avatar

How does one "lean" agnostic?

It's not a strawman argument, I'll let you pick any imaginary creature you please.

Redacted , (edited )
@Redacted@lemmy.world avatar

As an atheist who would fully accept the existence of a deity if any form of rigorous proof was provided, these boxes are dumb.

Redacted ,
@Redacted@lemmy.world avatar

I don’t think it is possible to prove a deity exists, but I’m fully open to the prospect of being wrong.

Sounds like straight up atheism to me...

Redacted ,
@Redacted@lemmy.world avatar

It's just a bit of a pointless distinction. No atheist could claim they know for sure.

Redacted ,
@Redacted@lemmy.world avatar

We know Google Translate gets things wrong sometimes so I was just wondering if Russia means "Special" Military Operation in the same way the Americans mean "Special" Olympics?

Redacted ,
@Redacted@lemmy.world avatar

Slay the Spire for improving risk analysis skills.

Redacted ,
@Redacted@lemmy.world avatar

Elden Ring.

Waited all year until it was on sale as I thought it might not be my cup of tea, tried not to let my prejudice get the better of me but felt it was such a drag I had to put it down.

It was recommended to me as I like Zelda but it couldn't be further from the things I like about it: innovation, fluid gameplay, freedom, puzzles, multiple ways to tackle enemies.

I don't think it's the difficulty as I play lots of roguelike and bullet hell games. My main gripe is the clunkiness of the combat to the point it's unfair. Like you don't really stand a chance through reactions alone, you have to learn the patterns and hitboxes of enemies so that you know in advance when to react.

Also I kept hearing how good the graphics are but I think they're kinda average although the actual art style is quite nice.

Any suggestions on how I might enjoy it would be much appreciated as I haven't got very far.

Redacted ,
@Redacted@lemmy.world avatar

Cheers, probably just not for me then.

Redacted ,
@Redacted@lemmy.world avatar

Yeah, glad I didn't buy this. Thought it was hated on a bit too much though.

I enjoyed the combat more than most RPGs and some of the hand crafted environments were nice. Found the ship building quite fun too.

Redacted ,
@Redacted@lemmy.world avatar

I don't find Elden Ring puzzling, but maybe I haven't played enough. From what I've seen so far it's more trial and error and than figuring stuff out, which I find boring.

Skill trees in general I think are bit of a cop out in most action games, let alone having to decipher them. I'll reach for 4X games like Stellaris or Civ if I want to sit and think about how stats affect outcomes.

Yeah boss battles are usually pretty easy in Zelda, as you say, 3 hits and done most of the time. They're traditionally about getting the player to master the technique or item you've just unlocked. Have you tried running straight to Ganon if BotW or tackling The Depths in TotK though? I don't think either of those tasks could be considered simple.

Surprised you only like the first one, the games are constantly innovating in terms of gameplay and design, but the first is a pretty standard affair. A lot of the time the simplicity is what enables the fun, fluid gameplay as with most games Nintendo put out.

If I want a challenge I'll play online shooters or pretty much any roguelike where when I die I don't come away feeling it was unfair. Tbh I think I just don't enjoy modern action RPGs in general rather than it being a specific Elden Ring criticism. I find they try to cater to lots of mechanics that other games implement better but fully aware that's an unpopular opinion.

Redacted ,
@Redacted@lemmy.world avatar

Yeah think you're right, I like fast-paced games where I can enter flow state quicker and I never was one for grinding up a skill tree in order to progress unless the grinding itself is fun/fluid.

I prefer actively attacking enemies with a bit of running away and dodging where required as opposed to patiently dodging waiting for an opening to attack.

Thanks for the offer, I would have taken you up on that, unfortunately I have it on Xbox, not PC.

Redacted ,
@Redacted@lemmy.world avatar

Weirdly I like Guitar Hero, but think that's mainly down to enjoying the songs and playing with friends. Scraping through Cliffs of Dover on expert was enough Eden Ring for me lol.

Redacted ,
@Redacted@lemmy.world avatar

I expected it to be difficult with a possibility of not enjoying it but seemed pretty popular so thought I'd give it a go.

Will give your suggestions a shot but I find everything about it obtuse to be honest. To me good game design lowers you gently into mastering the controls and ramping up difficulty, not just chucking you in at the deep end with confusing menus so it's on the player to look everything up.

Redacted ,
@Redacted@lemmy.world avatar

Having been predominantly a PC gamer for 30 years... PCs more hassle to update and maintain. When I finish work I want to sit on my sofa and play with as little inconvenience as possible.

Consoles fit nicely in a living room and are better for local multiplayer. This generation they were also cheaper than buying the equivalent PC hardware at launch.

Redacted ,
@Redacted@lemmy.world avatar

Ok but most of my games use Quick Resume so I am playing in under 15 seconds. To be honest the Switch has taken the crown for picking up where you left off since 2017.

I've used Moonlight but prefer not to stream really. Would be interested in how the latency is these days.

In the past I'd have said PC all the way but these days I'm glad both options exist. Biggest draw to the PC for me is mods. Would be tempted to make a dedicated SteamOS box next gen.

Redacted ,
@Redacted@lemmy.world avatar

I mean desktop, wouldn't really class the Deck as a PC.

Been tempted to get one but I use the Switch or cloud gaming on the go so have most bases covered already.

Redacted ,
@Redacted@lemmy.world avatar

True, but if I'm spending thousands on a machine, I tend to want to be able to do other things on it so unfortunately Windows usually enters the equation.

Will consider a dedicated SteamOS box when I next refresh.

Redacted , (edited )
@Redacted@lemmy.world avatar

Yes hence why I corrected to desktop. Sorry, just always used to using PC and desktop as interchangeable terms but see why you'd want to differentiate these days.

My point is I don't want a handheld that I have to plug in. If I'm going the PC route I'd prefer a desktop box I can upgrade so although the Deck is great, it doesn't suit literally all use cases.

Redacted , (edited )
@Redacted@lemmy.world avatar

You are correct by the technical definition, I apologise for suggesting the Steam Deck is not a PC lol.

What sort of things do you run on yours? I'd have thought it being a handheld it wouldn't be that useful for anything I'd want to run on it as it wouldn't be always on or connected.

My preference is a dedicated desktop box I can upgrade and potentially run some services like DNS, PiHole and some automated scripts on. I'd rather spend the money on that and keep using the Switch or cloud gaming when I'm on the go.

Redacted ,
@Redacted@lemmy.world avatar

Surely you still have to update drivers and OS?!

I dual boot Linux on my PC and run it on Raspberry Pis. Let's not pretend it requires zero maintenance.

Redacted ,
@Redacted@lemmy.world avatar

As always, it's a trade-off between convenience and ability to tweak.

When it comes to gaming, the convenience slightly edges it for me at the mo. Enjoying Game Pass, play anywhere, Quick Resume and have made all the money back I spent on the Series X through Microsoft Rewards twice over.

Next upgrade will be a tough call though.

Redacted ,
@Redacted@lemmy.world avatar

I fully back your sentiment OP; you understand as much about the world as any LLM out there and don't let anyone suggest otherwise.

Signed, a "contrarian".

Redacted ,
@Redacted@lemmy.world avatar

I believe OP is attempting to take on an army of straw men in the form of a poorly chosen meme template.

Redacted ,
@Redacted@lemmy.world avatar

Whilst everything you linked is great research which demonstrates the vast capabilities of LLMs, none of it demonstrates understanding as most humans know it.

This argument always boils down to one's definition of the word "understanding". For me that word implies a degree of consciousness, for others, apparently not.

To quote GPT-4:

LLMs do not truly understand the meaning, context, or implications of the language they generate or process. They are more like sophisticated parrots that mimic human language, rather than intelligent agents that comprehend and communicate with humans. LLMs are impressive and useful tools, but they are not substitutes for human understanding.

Redacted ,
@Redacted@lemmy.world avatar

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.

Redacted ,
@Redacted@lemmy.world avatar

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.

Redacted ,
@Redacted@lemmy.world avatar

Well it was a fun ruse while it lasted.

Redacted ,
@Redacted@lemmy.world avatar

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.

Redacted ,
@Redacted@lemmy.world avatar

That last sentence you wrote exemplifies the reductionism I mentioned:

It does, by showing it can learn associations with just limited time from a human's perspective, it clearly experienced the world.

Nope that does not mean it experienced the world, that's the reductionist view. It's reductionist because you said it learnt from a human perspective, which it didn't. A human's perspective is much more than a camera and a microphone in a cot. And experience is much more than being able to link words to pictures.

In general, you (and others with a similar view) reduce complexity of words used to descibe conciousness like "understanding", "experience" and "perspective" so they no longer carry the weight they were intended to have. At this point you attribute them to neural networks which are just categorisation algorithms.

I don't think being alive is necessarily essential for understanding, I just can't think of any examples of non-living things that understand at present. I'd posit that there is something more we are yet to discover about consciousness and the inner workings of living brains that cannot be fully captured in the mathematics of neural networks as yet. Otherwise we'd have already solved the hard problem of consciousness.

I'm not trying to shift the goalposts, it's just difficult to convey concisely without writing a wall of text. Neither of the links you provided are actual evidence for your view because this isn't really a discussion that evidence can be provided for. It's really a philosophical one about the nature of understanding.

Redacted ,
@Redacted@lemmy.world avatar

No one is moving goalposts, there is just a deeper meaning behind the word "understanding" than perhaps you recognise.

The concept of understanding is poorly defined which is where the confusion arises, but it is definitely not a direct synonym for pattern matching.

Redacted ,
@Redacted@lemmy.world avatar

I agree, there is no formal definition for AGI so a bit silly to discuss that really. Funnily enough I inadvertantly wrote the nearest neighbour algorithm to model swarming behavour back when I was an undergrad and didn't even consider it rudimentary AI.

Can I ask what your take on the possibility of neural networks understanding what they are doing is?

Redacted ,
@Redacted@lemmy.world avatar

Bringing physically or mentally disabled people into the discussion does not add or prove anything, I think we both agree they understand and experience the world as they are conscious beings.

This has, as usual, descended into a discussion about the word "understanding". We differ in that I actually do consider it mystical to some degree as it is poorly defined and implies some aspect of consciousness to myself and others.

Your definitions are remarkably vague and lack clear boundaries.

That's language for you I'm afraid, it's a tool to convey concepts that can easily be misinterpreted. As I've previously alluded to, this comes down to definitions and you can't really argue your point without reducing complexity of how living things experience the world.

I'm not overstating anything (it's difficult to overstate the complexities of the mind), but I can see how it could be interpreted that way given your propensity to oversimplify all aspects of a conscious being.

This is an argument from incredulity, repeatedly asserting that neural networks lack "true" understanding without any explanation or evidence. This is a personal belief disguised as a logical or philosophical claim. If a neural network can reliably connect images with their meanings, even for unseen examples, it demonstrates a level of understanding on its own terms.

The burden of proof here rests on your shoulders and my view is certainly not just a personal belief, it's the default scientific position. Repeating my point about the definition of "understanding" which you failed to counter does not make it an agrument from incredulity.

If you offer your definition of the word "understanding" I might be able to agree as long as it does not evoke human or even animal conscious experience. There's literally no evidence for that and as we know, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Redacted ,
@Redacted@lemmy.world avatar

Have you ever considered you might be, you know, wrong?

No sorry you're definitely 100% correct. You hold a well-reasoned, evidenced scientific opinion, you just haven't found the right node yet.

Perhaps a mental gymnastics node would suit sir better? One without all us laymen and tech bros clogging up the place.

Or you could create your own instance populated by AIs where you can debate them about the origins of consciousness until androids dream of electric sheep?

Redacted , (edited )
@Redacted@lemmy.world avatar

I'd appreciate it if you could share evidence to support these claims.

Which claims? I am making no claims other than AIs in their current form do not fully represent what most humans would define as a conscious experience of the world. They therefore do not understand concepts as most humans know it. My evidence for this is that the hard problem of consciousness is yet to be solved and we don't fully understand how living brains work. As stated previously, the burden of proof for anything further lies with yourself.

What definitions? Cite them.

The definition of how a conscious being experiences the world. Defining it is half the problem. There are no useful citations as you have entered the realm of philosophical debate which has no real answers, just debates about definitions.

Explain how I’m oversimplifying, don’t simply state that I’m doing it.

I already provided a precise example of your reductionist arguing methods. Are you even taking the time to read my responses or just arguing for the sake of not being wrong?

I've already provided my proof. I apologize if I missed it, but I haven't seen your proof yet. Show me the default scientific position.

You haven't provided any proof whatsoever because you can't. To convince me you'd have to provide compelling evidence of how consciousness arises within the mind and then demonstrate how that can be replicated in a neural network. If that existed it would be all over the news and the Nobel Prizes would be in the post.

If you have evidence to support your claims, I'd be happy to consider it. However, without any, I won't be returning to this discussion.

Again, I don't need evidence for my standpoint as it's the default scientific position and the burden of proof lies with yourself. It's like asking me to prove you didn't see a unicorn.

Redacted ,
@Redacted@lemmy.world avatar

...or you might not.

It's fun to think about but we don't understand the brain enough to extrapolate AIs in their current form to sentience. Even your mention of "parts" of the mind are not clearly defined.

There are so many potential hidden variables. Sometimes I think people need reminding that the brain is the most complex thing in the universe, we don't full understand it yet and neural networks are just loosely based on the structure of neurons, not an exact replica.

Redacted ,
@Redacted@lemmy.world avatar

You say maybe there's not much to understand about the brain but I entirely disagree, it's the most complex object in the known universe and we haven't discovered all of it's secrets yet.

Generating pictures from a vast database of training material is nowhere near comparable.

Redacted , (edited )
@Redacted@lemmy.world avatar

Possible, yes. It's also entirely possible there's interactions we are yet to discover.

I wouldn't claim it's unknowable. Just that there's little evidence so far to suggest any form of sentience could arise from current machine learning models.

That hypothesis is not verifiable at present as we don't know the ins and outs of how consciousness arises.

Then it would logically follow that all the other functions of a human brain are similarly "possible" if we train it right and add enough computing power and memory. Without ever knowing the secrets of the human brain. I'd expect the truth somewhere in the middle of those two perspectives.

Lots of things are possible, we use the scientific method to test them not speculative logical arguments.

Functions of the brain

These would need to be defined.

But that means it should also be reproducible by similar means.

Can't be sure of this... For example, what if quantum interactions are involved in brain activity? How does the grey matter in the brain affect the functioning of neurons? How do the heart/gut affect things? Do cells which aren't neurons provide any input? Does some aspect of consciousness arise from the very material the brain is made of?

As far as I know all the above are open questions and I'm sure there are many more. But the point is we can't suggest there is actually rudimentary consciousness in neural networks until we have pinned it down in living things first.

Redacted , (edited )
@Redacted@lemmy.world avatar

You obviously have hate issues

Says the person who starts chucking out insults the second they get downvoted.

From what I gather, anyone that disagrees with you is a tech bro with issues, which is quite pathetic to the point that it barely warrants a response but here goes...

I think I understand your viewpoint. You like playing around with AI models and have bought into the hype so much that you've completely failed to consider their limitations.

People do understand how they work; it's clever mathematics. The tech is amazing and will no doubt bring numerous positive applications for humanity, but there's no need to go around making outlandish claims like they understand or reason in the same way living beings do.

You consider intelligence to be nothing more than parroting which is, quite frankly, dangerous thinking and says a lot about your reductionist worldview.

You may redefine the word "understanding" and attribute it to an algorithm if you wish, but myself and others are allowed to disagree. No rigorous evidence currently exists that we can replicate any aspect of consciousness using a neural network alone.

You say pessimistic, I say realistic.

Redacted ,
@Redacted@lemmy.world avatar

Once again not offering any sort of valid retort, just claiming anyone that disagrees with you doesn't understand the field.

I suggest you take a cursory look at how to argue in good faith, learn some maths and maybe look into how neural networks are developed. Then study some neuroscience and how much we comprehend the brain and maybe then we can resume the discussion.

Redacted ,
@Redacted@lemmy.world avatar

You don't rwally have one lol. You've read too many pop-sci articles from AI proponents and haven't understood any of the underlying tech.

All your retorts boil down to copying my arguments because you seem to be incapable of original thought. Therefore it's not surprising you believe neural networks are approaching sentience and consider imitation to be the same as intelligence.

You seem to think there's something mystical about neural networks but there is not, just layers of complexity that are difficult for humans to unpick.

You argue like a religious nutjob or Trump supporter. At this point it seems you don't understand basic logic or how the scientific method works.

Redacted ,
@Redacted@lemmy.world avatar

This graph suggests the latter.

Not to mention the rising tensions around the globe reminiscent of the 1930s.

Redacted ,
@Redacted@lemmy.world avatar

OP's solved it everyone!

We all just need to get in our cars that we definitely have and cross oceans to a Lemmy meetup where we amass in our hundreds to bring down the corporate hegemony, solve climate change and live out the rest of our days remotely working together in peace.

Redacted ,
@Redacted@lemmy.world avatar

Pretty much same. Around 2012 it really became apparent that nothing was going to be done in time and I personally flipped from "Science/tech will save us!" to pessimist. At this point it's just realism.

The way the world handled Covid was the final nail in the coffin for me when the majority of humanity demonstrated that they can't/won't behave as a collective to save lives if it inconveniences them. It was the perfect test run for what is to come and most made it abundantly clear they can't cope with any kind of disruption to their capitalistic routine.

Now the data is beginning to show in the graphs the news is slowly seeping into mainstream circles. But at this it's way too late and nothing short of ditching the idea of growth and uniting/mobilising the entire world against the issue will solve it.

Luckily my partner is fully aware too so we're just making what we can of the time we have left. My friends and family on the other hand are busy having kids and whilst appear to listen, obviously don't grasp the gravity of the situation.

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • random
  • meta
  • story
  • wanderlust
  • goranko
  • forum
  • Woman
  • karpar
  • All magazines