logoalt Hacker News

coldteayesterday at 10:08 PM5 repliesview on HN

That is not that strong an argument as it seems, because we too might very well be "a series of weights for probable next tokens".

The main difference is the training part and that it's always-on.


Replies

jsiepkestoday at 12:00 AM

If you claim something might "very well" be something you state you need some better proof. Otherwise we might also "very well" be living in the matrix.

dinkumthinkumtoday at 2:30 AM

People always say this kind of thing. Human minds are not Turing machines or able to be simulated by Turing machines. When you go about your day doing your tasks, do you require terajoules of energy? I believe it is pretty clear human thinking is not at all like a computer as we know them.

bigstrat2003yesterday at 10:39 PM

That is a silly point. We very clearly are not "a series of weights for probable next tokens", as we can reason based on prior data points. LLMs cannot.

show 1 reply
naikrovekyesterday at 10:51 PM

We are much more than weights which output probable next tokens.

You are a fool if you think otherwise. Are we conscious beings? Who knows, but we’re more than a neural network outputting tokens.

Firstly, and most obviously, we aren’t LLMs, for Pete’s sake.

There are parts of our brains which are understood (kinda) and there are parts which aren’t. Some parts are neural networks, yes. Are all? I don’t know, but the training humans get is coupled with the pain and embarrassment of mistakes, the ability to learn while training (since we never stop training, really), and our own desires to reach our own goals for our own reasons.

I’m not spiritual in any way, and I view all living beings as biological machines, so don’t assume that I am coming from some “higher purpose” point of view.

show 2 replies
nothinkjustaiyesterday at 10:23 PM

We very obviously are not just a series of weights for probable next tokens. Like seriously, you can even ask an LLM and it will tell you our brains work differently to it, and that’s not even including the possibility that we have a soul or any other spiritual substrait.

show 3 replies