@pwlot@sebkrier The substrate is not beneath function, but for a given defined functional boundary, the causal properties of the substrate beyond those that enable the abstracted function may be immaterial or irrelevant inside the functional boundary.
@rao2z If LRMs recombine mathematical models within humanity’s knowledge closure based on explicitly prompting, why can they theoretically not generate Nobel-worthy discoveries?
@fchollet I get the sense that language is more of an Ethernet cable to connect with other minds. I don’t find myself actively using the language “OS” building blocks when thinking (at least subjectively). Maybe it varies by person?
Announcing Genmo Chat, a creative copilot that uses GPT-4 and a large suite of generative AI tools to create and then edit any video or image you ask for.
💬 "Help me direct a short movie Snack to the Future"
➡️ 📽️ https://t.co/jB6SPQbeL4 creates a fully edited 30 second trailer
@Kpaxs You may have answered this before but how do you find a place for “ambition” or “aspiration” in the context of avoiding objects of your desire? Can there be room for both peace and ambition?
@KevinSimler This is fantastic work. I think you strike the right balance between interaction and narration, which leaves enough room for experimentation but not at the expense of telling a story. Thank you!
@paraschopra Either way, if you’re fully simulating the brain you are in effect recreating the conscious agent and at that point both the agent and original subject have “free will”, it just happens to make the same or very similar decisions. You still wouldn’t be solving it analytically.
@paraschopra I agree that free will and determinism are compatible. It’s just not obvious to me that simulating the brain is unreachable. I suspect you may do so with acceptable fidelity (at a level higher than molecular) given the possible redundancy and stability of brain circuits.