- 0 Posts
- 74 Comments
2·3 months agoIndeed.
If it’s Android with Google apps, it isn’t your phone.
especially if someone on lemmy is WRONG, and you need to thumb a reply!
🤣
Eh?
is experimental
tl;dr
As I understand it, the original impetus was to develop a communication system that was resilient in the case of a nuclear attack.
I am kinda sick of seeing people get unfairly criticized or sidelined
Just curious what you’re going to do about it, if anything?
412·7 months ago“Capitalism” – [email protected]
sleeping technique
No idea what you mean by this.
I’m unwillingly associated with mankind.
This is gobbledygook.
What is?
They don’t know which processes they fire and when, but they know exactly which processes they have.
Who are “they”? What processes are you referring to?
Programmers and engineers do get to see inside, and they know exactly how a computers works.
They understand how computers work but not how neural nets produce the outputs they do. Ten seconds searching the web:
https://www.vice.com/en/article/y3pezm/scientists-increasingly-cant-explain-how-ai-works
it’s just a Chinese Room
Searle was wrong.
“The argument, to be clear, is not about whether a machine can be conscious, but about whether it (or anything else for that matter) can be shown to be conscious. It is plain that any other method of probing the occupant of a Chinese room has the same difficulties in principle as exchanging questions and answers in Chinese. It is simply not possible to divine whether a conscious agency or some clever simulation inhabits the room.” – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_room#Consciousness
Edit: interesting quote from elsewhere on that page:
‘The sheer volume of the literature that has grown up around it inspired Pat Hayes to comment that the field of cognitive science ought to be redefined as “the ongoing research program of showing Searle’s Chinese Room Argument to be false”.’ – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_room#History
deleted by creator
ROFL pot calling the kettle black!
O_o