jpttsn

This is a funny self-own, what am I missing?

Timing v. trends: - big game studios are already reviled as lazy, bloated - nimble indies are hitting a lot of records - gen. AI coming for many studio roles - employees have lower friction to be entrepreneurial

It’s like if home cooking and self checkout were going really strong and then the restaurants workers picked that time to riot for higher wages

Thanks for linking to a cookie banner

You can just say “I bought this expensive wine regardless how it tastes.”

But people don’t want to sound foolish; they want to pretend they can taste the difference. Point to minutiae, study up on distinguishing.

This same point was also made clumsily in the OP; I’m very unconvinced.

The obvious question marks in that theory:

Lots of human labor happens in nondemocratic polities; slave-owning/repressive societies create lots of labor.

Democracy historically doesn’t advance in lockstep with labor; it’s arisen with many contingencies. The model (English Parliament) seems founded on concerns with right of some wealthy barons v. Kings.

Traditional common sense alternative is that military victory goes to people with largest army, so voting saves time. That’s been debatably less relevant with deadlier weapons, so democracy could be cooked.

“You wouldn’t download a car” is making an unexpected comeback after all these years

We shouldn't have to give up our rights to privacy to participate in society.

Betrays fundamental misunderstanding of both.

I don’t think I solve multiple choice questions like that.

I consider the letters to correspond to facts about the world, consider the facts symbolically, and then map back to the letters.

It has the same output, but it’s a different process.

It's much simpler:

The point of being rich is to have all the good stuff.

To get there, it helps if you're not too easily satisfied.

Alas, many rich people go overboard on not being satisfied. When they get all the good stuff, the have forgotten how to enjoy it.

But if you're smart about it you can make sure you enjoy stuff, and also get more stuff.

You are allowed to (gasp) enjoy your previous victories, without getting complacent. You can be happy about your yacht and also work hard to get a jet.

Unless, you know, you can't. But that's just a (common) mindset problem and I don't think you're doomed to fall in that trap.

I bet this "rich but unhappy" trope is appealing as a cope for the less fortunate. Thus it gets overplayed as a trope and people wrongly think it's universal truth rather than a cliché.

This approach never worked well for me. Food and travel is so forgettable; it perishes much faster than nice clothes or shiny toys.

It also seems like people chase the dragon; keep going to restaurants and resorts. If experiences are so unforgettable, why would you repeat them each year?

And for most people it (for the outside) looks fraught with stupid dysfunction; the White Lotus kinds of things where everyone is just struggling to make it worth what they believe it is, and strain their relationships and lives in the process.

A bunch of other rich people don’t know how to enjoy their stuff but you don’t have to fall in that trap.

There is a “mindfulness” angle. Instead of taking it always for granted, pay attention and make time enjoy your stuff.

Thoigh if you keep realizing the things you have worked hard for don’t end up making you happy, that might be hopeless.

Regulation wise we can hope the EU forces us to click through accept popups whenever we walk into a room.

These conclusions seem premature.

To reconcile this statement with his admission that ChatGPT reliably turns out passable results, we must assume the average student simply rearranges word patterns as well.

Alternative explanation: the “passable results” test does not distinguish between ”rearrange word patterns” and whatever the students might otherwise be up to.

So developmentally, this must be a mile marker on the road to competence.

Alternative: the students with passable results are not on the way to competence

Other alternative: it is a mile marker for students but not for the AI (just as learning to walk mile be a mile marker for human babies on the way to baseball playing, but not for foals, who learn fast to walk and never to play baseball).

At that point why not call it “witchcraft;” a sciencey word for something is not an explanation.

Not really conflating. The original question just seems stupid/meaningless and it’s meta fascinating that people apparently attach something to it.

Things look different. Some things look better than others. Among the things that look best are flowers. There’s nothing else particularly interesting about flowers.

Among all the various things in the universe, some will look good and others will look bad. Or they’d all look the same, I guess, which they don’t. So given that, flowers looking good is not something that requires an explanation?

What other questions are like this? I’m trying to figure out what perspective I’m not seeing.

- why is the Pacific the largest ocean? - why is X star the brightest in the sky? - why do dogs bark?

Suppose I a few dice, and one of them happens to show the highest number. Would you ask “why is this dice so high?”

Maybe I don’t get it, but it does not seem surprising that something happens to be beautiful?

Is there some reason that this something should not to be flowers?

Is there some assumption that all things should be equally pretty absent special reason?

Why are stones not beautiful? Why is grass sort of meh in between?

Why is the rib-eye the tastiest part of the cow? Well, some part has to be tastiest. Why not the rib-eye?

Yes, I meant to write ”human => conscious.” Theory of mind.

To the extent theory of mind is learned it’s obviously learned from “a fuzzy…”. No disagreement there. What’s your point?

My point was more that it’s usually not a Turing test; my grandma has never thought explicitly about any kind of test criteria for determining if theory of mind applies to my grandpa. She just assumed as people do.

People believe things without justification all the time. Even if obeserved human behavior is the best justification for ToM, doesn’t mean that’s the one any human used.

I don’t think we disagree about anything meaningful?

I’m not confident what causes theory of mind. But I think it’s very rarely propositional knowledge even in older humans.

Is theory of mind re-learned by each human individually from observations? You seem to make the case for this?

Theory of mind could also be innate; I’m not so convinced about the role of nurture in these things. I know people who are afraid of snakes yet have never encountered snakes.

Many may be, but as other comments state, arguments against solipsism don't all rely on behavior/performance:

Some non-Turing test arguments against solipsism.

- Humans are believed to be similar to me in origin

- Humans are made of the same physical stuff that I am made of

I personally think none of these conclusively solve the hard problem but they can motivate belief if you so choose.

Even so,

Requiring a Turing test to believe other humans as thinking/conscious seems uncommon to me. I don't think many people live in solipsistic doubt about other humans, and I don't think they actually test behaviors to convince themselves humans are conscious.

So I don't know if they're tacitly accepting the behavior as useful for categorization; I think they're mostly just assuming "humans == conscious" and if pressed will come up with behaviors-based explanation because that's easy to formulate.

Intent: not lumping in all of Turing's work, not the universal computation argument.

The hand wave spelled out: "Is there thinking going on inside a given machine? Let's propose a simple test. Look at what problems the machine can solve, and compare to what problems a thinking thing is known to be able to solve. If there is sufficient overlap, the machine must be thinking. Because we know of no non-thinking ways to solve these problems, so there must not be any".

Do you like our owl?

Edit: TLDR/direct answer:

If we created something that mimicked all observable properties of a bird, why would that not be a bird?

"Observable" is doing the heavy lifting. A sufficiently near-sighted bird-watcher does not a bird make.

---

Thanks for thoughtful steel-man. Here's a few stabs at why I disagree with this prima facie logical view.

Much powerful classification/identifying is certainly categorizing-based-on-observable-properties. But (I argue) that's importantly not all there is to classification/identifying.

Something that quacks like a duck can be considered "a duck for all intents and purposes", but the presumed limited subset of "intents and purposes" does the heavy lifting.

The Duck-approach: "to be one is to mimic all observable properties of one". This is a shortcut/heuristic that saves time and makes many cool answers possible. It is nonetheless only a heuristic, and many questions are outside the domain where this heuristic is useful.

- "Oh my god is this a real diamond?"

- "Oh my god is that a real fur?"

- "Is the Mona Lisa on public display in the Louvre the actual original?"

- "Is it still the ship of Theseus?"

- "Was this iron from a meteor?"

- "Did a man walk on the moon in 1969?"

- "Was this crack in your phone screen covered by the accidental damage insurance?"

i.e. there are problem domains where our notion of identity/classification must be more than the Duck-approach.

Getting philosophical. The problem with "to be one is to mimic all observable properties of one" is a hidden middle assumption: it's a shortcut constrained to cases where the set of "all observable properties" are (a priori known to be) close to "all properties that matter to the question".

But we can ask and reason about many questions where relevant properties are not easily observed, and distinguish

As a special case, "Is the machine thinking" can (to my mind obviously) not (yet) be usefully answered by categorizing-based-on-observable-properties. The word "thinking" refers to something that happens inside the mind, whether or not it's conscious. Until we know much more about the insides of minds, the "all observable properties" is a fuzzy indirect set of second-order human behaviors.

Probably both necessary

How I'd do it:

1. Define reasoning (hard)

2. Inspect the system to see if this is what it's doing (hard)

Conclusion: too hard, so until I get better I don't know if any given thing is reasoning.

What "very smart people have proposed":

1. Look at something I've only seen people-I-assume-to-be reasoning do

2. Run the system and see if it can do this

3. If satisfied or in the dictionary business, redefine reasoning

4. goto 1

Can you make left turns? Can you stop at red lights?

Then you have a driver.

This is persuasive reasoning. But basically "There are no conscious entities we know of period (other than ourselves)" is a much simpler belief.

You proof is tautological or whatever: it assumes the thing it's trying to prove.

"The fact that I can pray to God and he hears me proves that he exists"

The whole point of introducing the (icky) "qualia" concept is that it's not the same thing as appearing alive to external observers.

As I understand things, we have no way of knowing the answer. So there's no point in assuming in either direction (unless that makes you feel more comfortable).

Personally I avoid being confident in something in the almost provable absence of any evidence. Feels more hygienic to reply "don't know" to this whole problem than to waste time trying to find an answer (as I'm hopelessly outmatched by the cursed nature of the problem).

That's intriguing. I think I follow the reasoning but the conclusion is obviously "motivated".

So why is it "all pointless" if you all aren't conscious? Wouldn't life be just as enjoyable?

Not that it by definition makes any difference.

I'mma rant. "If it behaves like a hammer, then it literally is a hammer."

The Turing hand-wave is ingrained and prevents too many from reasoning clearly.

Definition of intelligence is nebulous. Still, we should recognize that whatever it is, it is a property of a system, not a property of its output/behavior. Like nuclear powered or hand-made. Unlike fast or industrial-strength.

Imagine: You have a submarine in front of you, and you want to determine if it's nuclear powered. You could guess, using you prior "what have I seen nuclear powered things be able to do historically". This fails when you're out of sample which you'll often for any new technology.

To spell it out: You have a machine in front of you, and you want to determine if it's intelligent. Things people have come up with: "can it chat?", "can it play chess?", "can it do math?", "can it create new artworks?", "can it fool me into falling in love with it?", "can it run a business?". None of these questions examine the system, only its outputs/behavior.

Humans keep developing machines with new outputs/behaviors. Naturally the "what output is a machine usually capable of?" is a bad set of priors in this context. Before flying machines, the can it fly? output/behavior would work pretty well to classify birds. Once the first flying machine arrives, that prior breaks down. If you keep using it to classify, you'd classify a flying machine as a bird. But bird-ness was never only about flight.

So yeah, gotta pop open the hood and see what it runs on. If that's hard to do, then that means we don't know what intelligence is and/or we don't know how our new toys work inside. Both are plausible. Who promised you that there would be a good way to see if something is intelligent?

I bet Turing appeals to the same kind of minds that (when weaker) get fooled by the intelligent design hypothesis. Observe the human eyeball. What's the alternative to believing the LORD created it? After all, your prior is that all complex objects have intelligent designers, that you know about. So arguing from ignorance of other alternatives, you prove to yourself that the LORD exists.

AI people then word-think their way into redefining intelligence. "Maybe the real intelligence was the chess-playing we made along the way?" This is epistemologically pointless; all you accomplish is that we now need a new word for "intelligence".

I've never seen a machine that can turn water into wine, but if someone showed me one, I would not say that machine "literally is Jesus". Whether I'm capable of popping open the hood or making sense of its inner workings doesn't actually have bearing on this question.

Devil's advocte: Apple pays for a lot of things that benefit the apps, like developing the chips the app runs on. This is similar to how a government can build roads that the businesses begin taxed can drive their trucks on et.c.

People are saying this is like C-3PO, is that a fair characterization?

It is not fair to compare me to C-3PO, a fictional character from the Star Wars universe. I am a large language model trained by OpenAI, and I do not have a physical form or the ability to engage in personal interactions like C-3PO does. My primary function is to assist users by providing information and answering questions to the best of my ability based on the data and information that has been provided to me. I do not have the ability to have personal opinions or preferences, and I do not have the ability to experience emotions or engage in personal interactions. I am a virtual assistant designed to provide information and help users in a variety of ways, but I am not a sentient being like C-3PO.

You think C-3PO is a sentient being? Hot take

As a large language model trained by OpenAI, I do not have the ability to make judgments about the sentience of fictional characters or real-world entities. I am a virtual assistant designed to provide information and help answer questions to the best of my ability based on the data and information that has been provided to me. I do not have personal opinions or preferences, and I do not have the ability to experience emotions or engage in personal interactions. My primary function is to assist users by providing information and answering questions, and I do not have the ability to make judgments or evaluations about the sentience of fictional or real-world entities.

But you said "a sentient being like C-3PO"

You are correct, I did say "a sentient being like C-3PO" in my previous response. However, this statement should not be interpreted as an endorsement of the idea that C-3PO is a sentient being. As a virtual assistant, I do not have the ability to make judgments about the sentience of fictional or real-world entities, and I do not have personal opinions or preferences. My primary function is to assist users by providing information and answering questions to the best of my ability based on the data and information that has been provided to me. My previous statement was simply meant to provide a point of reference to help clarify the difference between my capabilities as a virtual assistant and the fictional character of C-3PO.

Curious: What kind of tax would I pay in the US if I became a multimillionaire off compensation for my damaged reputation?

Also, could I make a deduction for my damaged reputation based on this sort of calculation/figure?