> If we’re neural nets, shouldn’t 12,000 years of post paleolithic experience be enough to have more modern emotions
does that mean you believe the Coelacanths should have evolved feet by now?
evolution does not work that way. usually new structures are laid out on top, new behaviours come about that can override older ones at certain times and at other times, "instinct" takes over, and an old program is running again.
That’s sounding much more biological than a neural net now. Neural nets are much quicker to adapt to new parameters. Coelacanths and humans aren’t. Which was my point if 12,000 years isn’t enough whereas neural nets are rapidly changeable, maybe we can’t do this equivalence in calling humans neural nets.
does that mean you believe the Coelacanths should have evolved feet by now?
evolution does not work that way. usually new structures are laid out on top, new behaviours come about that can override older ones at certain times and at other times, "instinct" takes over, and an old program is running again.