my argument is that the mathematical model for machine learning is in no way close to human minds anymore
And I’m saying that you can’t know that, because science doesn’t know that.
There is a reason that these are called neural networks. The atomic unit that they’re built on is a model of actual neurons and the information encoded in the network (connection strength and activation threshold) is based on observational studies of brains and how they process information.
Making a claim like ‘it isn’t the same as a human mind’ is simply not supported by evidence because there are no studies that try to correlate neural structures with the subjective ‘mind’ (i.e. the software running on the brain hardware).
However, we do know how neurons accept inputs based on weighting and apply linear transformations of their inputs into their outputs and we can create mathematical neurons that match observed neurons. We can train these networks and the way that they adjust their weights also matches cultured physical neurons. We know based on observational data that the mathematical model matches the physical neurons.
Obviously we don’t have Transformer networks in our brains, because we don’t learn to predict next tokens or to denoise images. But the underlying hardware that these systems run on is an exact analog of the neurons that make up the brains of everything on Earth. There’s nothing magical about human minds, they’re built out of neurons just as much as transformer networks.
You’re trying to split hairs but not explaining how any of that applies to the definition of art.
bruh
of course math can predict and model reality, but that was not my argument
my argument is that the mathematical model for machine learning is in no way close to human minds anymore
And I’m saying that you can’t know that, because science doesn’t know that.
There is a reason that these are called neural networks. The atomic unit that they’re built on is a model of actual neurons and the information encoded in the network (connection strength and activation threshold) is based on observational studies of brains and how they process information.
Making a claim like ‘it isn’t the same as a human mind’ is simply not supported by evidence because there are no studies that try to correlate neural structures with the subjective ‘mind’ (i.e. the software running on the brain hardware).
However, we do know how neurons accept inputs based on weighting and apply linear transformations of their inputs into their outputs and we can create mathematical neurons that match observed neurons. We can train these networks and the way that they adjust their weights also matches cultured physical neurons. We know based on observational data that the mathematical model matches the physical neurons.
Obviously we don’t have Transformer networks in our brains, because we don’t learn to predict next tokens or to denoise images. But the underlying hardware that these systems run on is an exact analog of the neurons that make up the brains of everything on Earth. There’s nothing magical about human minds, they’re built out of neurons just as much as transformer networks.
You’re trying to split hairs but not explaining how any of that applies to the definition of art.