this post was submitted on 15 May 2024
1 points (100.0% liked)

TechTakes

1432 readers
16 users here now

Big brain tech dude got yet another clueless take over at HackerNews etc? Here's the place to vent. Orange site, VC foolishness, all welcome.

This is not debate club. Unless it’s amusing debate.

For actually-good tech, you want our NotAwfulTech community

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 0 points 6 months ago (5 children)

It's almost like we can't make a machine conscious until we know what makes a human conscious, and it's obvious Emergentism is bullshit because making machines smarter doesn't make them conscious

Time to start listening to Roger Penrose's Orch-OR theory as the evidence piles up - https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.jpcb.3c07936

[–] [email protected] 0 points 6 months ago (2 children)

Orch-OR

Never heard of this thing but just reading through the wiki

An essential feature of Penrose's theory is that the choice of states when objective reduction occurs is selected neither randomly (as are choices following wave function collapse) nor algorithmically. Rather, states are selected by a "non-computable" influence embedded in the Planck scale of spacetime geometry.

Neither randomly nor alorithmically, rather magically. Like really, what the fuck else could you mean by "non-computable" in there that would be distinguishable from magic?

Penrose claimed that such information is Platonic, representing pure mathematical truths, which relates to Penrose's ideas concerning the three worlds: the physical, the mental, and the Platonic mathematical world. In Shadows of the Mind (1994), Penrose briefly indicates that this Platonic world could also include aesthetic and ethical values, but he does not commit to this further hypothesis.

And this is just crankery with absolutely no mathematical meaning. Also pure mathematical truths are not outside of the physical world, what the fuck would that even mean bro.

I thought Penrose was a smart physicist, the hell is he doing peddling this.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 6 months ago

I thought Penrose was a smart physicist, the hell is he doing peddling this.

https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/2012-03-21

[–] [email protected] 0 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

it's well outside of his ballpark somehow, it's like how Linus Pauling started all that megadose vitamin horseshit (starting with vit C), it sorta, kinda made a vibe-based shred of sense when you ignore all actual details, but he was hopelessly lost because he was not a biologist. what he had was nobel prize so he had enough cred for people to fall for it. many such cases!

[–] [email protected] 0 points 6 months ago

and it’s obvious Emergentism is bullshit because making machines smarter doesn’t make them conscious

This is like 101 of bad logic, "this sentence is false because I failed to prove it just now".

[–] [email protected] 0 points 6 months ago

Throwing out emergentism because some linear algebra failed to replicate it is a pretty bad take.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 6 months ago (1 children)

You're right that consciousness and intelligence are not the same. Our language tends to conflate the two.

However, evolution created consciousness over billions of years by emergent factors and no source of specific direction besides being more successful at reproduction. We can likely get there orders of magnitude faster than evolution could. The big problem would be recognizing it for what it is when it's here.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 6 months ago (3 children)

@frezik @HawlSera

> We can likely get there orders of magnitude faster than evolution could

[Citation needed]

[–] [email protected] 0 points 6 months ago

I mean, assuming it is at all possible (or rather that the problem even means anything), I suppose four billion years is a rather generous deadline.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 6 months ago (1 children)

If I practice trying to shoot hoops every day I’m going to get one in a lot sooner than you will just kicking at the ball every time you walk by.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 6 months ago (1 children)

@WolfLink so you're saying there's a measurable correlation between practicing a skill and getting better at it? Amazing

What's this got to do with the Big Averaging Machine?

[–] [email protected] 0 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Specifically trying to do something will get it done a lot faster than waiting for it to happen by chance.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 6 months ago (1 children)

@WolfLink and that's how evolution works, is it?

[–] [email protected] 0 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Yes it is, in fact. Tiny, random variations, which typically take millions of years to end being a noticeable change.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 6 months ago (1 children)

@WolfLink note how nothing there is "trying" to do anything

[–] [email protected] 0 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Exactly my point. I’d expect humans trying to make something will get results on a timescale about a million times faster than evolution.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

about a million times faster than evolution

Ah, so you also think intelligent AI is at least 4000 years away.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 6 months ago

We go orders of magnitude faster than evolution on tons of things. It's not that big of a claim.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

The given link contains exactly zero evidence in favor of Orchestrated Objective Reduction — "something interesting observed in vitro using UV spectroscopy" is a far cry from anything having biological relevance, let alone significance for understanding consciousness. And it's not like Orch-OR deserves the lofty label of theory, anyway; it's an ill-defined, under-specified, ad hoc proposal to throw out quantum mechanics and replace it with something else.

The fact that programs built to do spicy autocomplete turn out to do spicy autocomplete has, as far as I can tell, zero implications for any theory of consciousness one way or the other.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 6 months ago (2 children)

Bro the main objection to Orch-OR is that the brain is too warm for Quatnum stuff to happen there, and then they found Quantum stuff in the brain.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 6 months ago

Kludging an "objective reduction" process into the dynamics is throwing out quantum mechanics and replacing it with something else. And because Orch-OR is not quantum mechanics, every observation that a quantum effect might be biologically important somewhere is irrelevant. Orch-OR isn't "quantum biology", it's pixie-dust biology.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 6 months ago (3 children)

it’s very important to me that you don’t type the words “Blake Stacey” into a search engine while explaining quote unquote Quatnum stuff to them

[–] [email protected] 0 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Oh I see... I didn't realize you were trying to tell me I was talking to Blake Stacey or that he was respected in Quantum Mechanics. I completely misinterpreted what you were trying to tell me. I blame it on the inability of text to properly convey sarcasm.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 6 months ago (1 children)

you couldn't even be affronted with wit? dire

[–] [email protected] 0 points 6 months ago

I had mis-interpreted the comment to along the lines of something like "You're just copying and pasting what you heard of Spirit Science aren't you?"

My most humble apologizes. Maybe I just wasn't paying hard enough attention.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 6 months ago (2 children)

I don't know anything about a Blake Stacey, but from context clues I'm assuming she's one of those Quantum Mysticism nut jobs. Naw I don't go for that sort of thing, and neither should anybody with even a single crumb of common sense.

Free Advice: If anyone says they're going to heal you with "Quantum Healing", it's code for "I have no medical training, and if you listen to me, you're going to die horribly."

I get claims about Quantum Mechanics being involved with consciousness are a little sus, but given Penrose's pedigree, history, and reputation and how much the science seems to check out I trust him. I know many have their doubts about the Orch-OR theory, but after doing a lot of reading up on it I think it reasonable to conclude that the reason it hasn't been more widely embraced is due to quacks like Deepak Chopra and his ilk poisoning the well with his talk of "Quantum Consciousness"

[–] [email protected] 0 points 6 months ago

You're not doing yourself any favors with this reply.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 6 months ago (2 children)

Psst, check the usernames of the people in this thread!

[–] [email protected] 0 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Who needs usernames when you have "context clues" instead? :-P

[–] [email protected] 0 points 6 months ago (1 children)

If it helps, I know who you are and will still happily tell you incorrect information about yourself and your profession if asked to!

[–] [email protected] 0 points 6 months ago

Wow, I guess humans and LLMs aren't so different after all!

[–] [email protected] 0 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

it’s very important to me that you don’t type the words “Blake Stacey” into a search engine while explaining quote unquote Quatnum stuff to them

randoms from /all wandering into the vale of sneers: https://www.buttersafe.com/2008/10/23/the-detour/

[–] [email protected] 0 points 6 months ago

many such cases!