I think the argument is that you need to ask how you are measuring when you say it seems more correct than anything that came before. You may just be describing the experience of swimming in the dominant paradigm
Have you managed any kind of conversation with a clock before? Because you can actually have an intelligent conversation with an LLM. I think that's a pretty compelling case that it's not just swimming in the dominant paradigm.
> People thought they were having intelligent conversations with Eliza
Sure, but who has had a good conversation with a clock?
> people even have satisfying emotional conversations with teddy bears.
No they don't. Kids know very well that they're pretending to have conversations. The people who actually hear teddy bears speak also know that that's not normal, and we all know that this is a cognitive distortion.
> we all know that this is a cognitive distortion.
This is also true of those who form emotional attachments with current AI. The people developing romantic relationships with Replika etc. aren't engaging in healthy behaviour.
One attempt could be "it allows us to make better predictions about the mind".
This article mentions excitement about neural networks overgeneralizing verb inflections, which human language learners also do. If neural networks lead to the discovery of new examples of human cognitive or perceptual errors or illusions, or to the discovery of new effective methods for learning, teaching, or psychotherapy, that could count as evidence that they're a good model of our actual minds.
> If neural networks lead to the discovery of new examples of human cognitive or perceptual errors or illusions,
How would they, except as tools for analyzing research rather than research models? They don't work like human brains, so while they might sometimes exhibit something that looks like similar behavior when viewed a certain way, other than already having observed the behavior in human beings, there’s no reason to expect something they do to reflect what human brains, and moreover there’s no reason to expect useful insights from the corresponding behavior, since there is no reason to expect that the behavior responds similarly outside of the conditions where it is observed in both systems, leaving all the insight on the brain to cone from the brain (or models that, unlike artificial neural nets, we know have structural and behavioral similarities with (some parts of) human brains that are useful.)
If the article is talking about the neural network in McClelland and Rumelhart’s Parallel Distributed Processing, there’s actually a paper by Steven Pinker and some other linguists drilling into it and finding that it doesn’t model children’s language acquisition nearly as closely or as well as M&R think it does.
Wow I had not considered this at all. We used a bit of sign language before my toddler started talking, but have more recently run into these situations where big feelings are crowding out speech and it’d be useful to get anything through. I’ll give this a shot tomorrow
Yeah... everything is way too complex and interconnected for any of these "let's just do X to solve everything at once" plans to work.
I don't get how people can still be so guilible after we basically shown over and over again that we don't have much control on what's happening, virtually every breakthrough we had brought more issues we have no idea how to fix in the long run.
Not sure I subscribe to a totally fatalistic view here. Complex and interconnected systems can still yield solutions to careful study, and even without total foresight and control, some outcomes can be preferable to others.
That is true. It's also true that truly happy people live in places in Africa with actually the bare minimum calories, barely functioning shelter, and not the best prospects for medicine.
They are implying that Costco's yearly membership fee filters out poor people, who shop at Walmart instead. They consider these people to be undesirable customers because people with money do not like to associate with them.
I blame it's cold, sterile lighting. I don't know why, but something about Walmart's lights make it feel clinical. More like a laboratory simulating a grocery store and running experiments on the masses. Thus the walmart people (they're plants, obviously)
It's a bad and lazy question, but I'll respond nonetheless.
"All united by a passion for beautiful architecture and an aesthetically pleasing living environment." is entirely subjective. Presenting opinions on what constitutes 'aesthetically pleasing' as fact is neither productive nor useful. Trying to link this with empirical research so cumbersomely is foolhardy, patronising to the reader and not compelling.
