when I Google "define apart from" I get:

Merriam: Other than, Besides, except for

You're stretching really far for all this my man.

You haven't explained what is a paradox yet! :blush: — javi2541997

A paradox certainly ISN'T a simple story, ended with a simple question that has a simple answer.

I pour milk for everyone in my house except for me. Who pours milk for me?

someone from outside Seville, or someone who isn't a barber, or maybe there are more barbers in Seville but they aren't all called "the barber of Seville", and that title is reserved for him. All quite apparent solutions

Or maybe nobody shaves him, maybe he has a really long beard - or he doesn't grow a beard, because he's a trans man before the age of hrt

yeah I don't think you're making any interesting connections just yet

You don't have any clue about this linguistic paradox. — javi2541997

This isn't a paradox. The sentence of the op is clearly, plainly, easily possible. Nothing remotely challenging about imagining a man shaving all men in his village except himself.

the barber shaves all other than himself, Joe shaves the barber, but Who doesn't shave anybody. Russell gets shaved by the barber.

I'm not really sure how that connects to the theist stories Vera was talking about. I doubt very many of them feature cars.

No, Who doesn't shave anybody.

Joe

There seems to be a bit of a wave of this material about - an attempt at rebuilding a discourse on meaning from the wreckage of humanism/scientism/materialism towards transcendental matters. Is Vervaeke a Platonist? — Tom Storm

There was already some discussion on this previously, but I don't think anybody said this explicitly:

Regarding the mind, and the things the mind does, and why and how it does them, he's 100% a "it's all in the brain" type of guy. He's said as much explicitly at least once or twice in a podcast I listened to.

I think there's a lot of misconceptions about matierliasm - it's not the boogyman many of you seem to think it is, as Janus points out.

But isn't there something "behind" the stories that a person cannot wimp out on even if she tried? — Astrophel

Like what?

But eventually it has to get to a position that it hasn't seen in its training data, and then what? — noAxioms

And then it continues to make (usually) legal moves which are approximately as good as its general skill level predicts they should be.

https://adamkarvonen.github.io/machine_learning/2024/01/03/chess-world-models.html

I also checked if it was playing unique games not found in its training dataset. There are often allegations that LLMs just memorize such a wide swath of the internet that they appear to generalize. Because I had access to the training dataset, I could easily examine this question. In a random sample of 100 games, every game was unique and not found in the training dataset by the 10th turn (20 total moves). This should be unsurprising considering that there are more possible games of chess than atoms in the universe.

I have to read this next, it's the follow up article

https://adamkarvonen.github.io/machine_learning/2024/03/20/chess-gpt-interventions.html#:~:text=Chess%2DGPT%20is%20orders%20of,board%20state%20and%20player%20skill.

Also in passing I learned about linear probes, which I gather are simpler neural nets that can analyze the internals of other neural nets. So they are working on the "black box" problem, trying to understand the inner workings of neural nets. That's good to know. — fishfry

Yeah same, this was really intriguing to me too

And thanks so much for pointing me at that example. It's a revelation. — fishfry

Of course, I'm glad you think so. I've actually believed for quite some time that LLMs have internal models of stuff, but the strong evidence for that belief wasn't as available to me before - that's why that article is so big to me.

I'm really pleased that other people see how big of a deal that is too - you could have just read a few paragraphs and called me an idiot instead , that was what I assumed would happen. That's what normally happens in these circumstances. I applaud you for going further than that.

By doing nothing more than auto-completing these games as text strings, — fishfry

For full clarity, and I'm probably being unnecessarily pedantic here, it's not necessarily fair to say that's all they did. That's all their goal was, that's all they were asked to - BUT what all of this should tell you, in my opinion, is that when a neural net is asked to achieve a task, there's no telling HOW it's actually going to achieve that task.

In order to achieve the task of auto completing the chess text strings, it seemingly did something extra - it built an internal model of a board game which it (apparently) reverse engineered from the strings. (I actually think that's more interesting than its relatively high chess rating, the fact that it can reverse engineer the rules of chess seeing nothing but chess notation).

So we have to distinguish, I think, between the goals it was given, and how it accomplished those goals.

Apologies if I'm just repeating the obvious.

okay so I guess I'm confused why, after all that, you still said

No internal model of any aspect of the actual game

Would you consider yourself a compatibilist?

So it's still possible that the "future" you changed to was the future that it was guranteed to be all along, yeah?

but you haven't proven that it was possible for you to do other than what you've done, right?

To conclude, I have proven I can change the future indirectly by interrupting the flow of the present — Barkon

Have you? Change the future from what?

This one developed a higher level of understanding than it was programmed for, if you look at it that way. — fishfry

I do. In fact I think that's really what neural nets are kind of for and have always (or at least frequently) done. They are programmed to exceed their programming in emergent ways.

No internal model of any aspect of the actual game. — fishfry

I feel like you might have missed some important paragraphs in the article. Did you notice the heat map pictures? Did you read all the paragraphs around that? A huge part of the article is very much exploring the evidence that gpt really does model the game.

more akin to a form of explicit reasoning that relies on an ability to attend to internal representations? — Pierre-Normand

Did you read the article I posted that we're talking about?

I stand astonished. That's really amazing. — fishfry

I appreciate you taking the time to read it, and take it seriously.

Ever since chat gpt gained huge popularity a year or two ago with 3.5, there have been people saying LLMs are "just this" or "just that", and I think most of those takes miss the mark a little bit. "It's just statistics" it "it's just compression".

Perhaps learning itself has a lot in common with compression - and it apparently turns out the best way to "compress" the knowledge of how to calculate the next string of a chess game is too actually understand chess! And that kinda makes sense, doesn't it? To guess the next move, it's more efficient to actually understand chess than to just memorize strings.

And one important extra data point from that write up is the bits about unique games. Games become unique, on average, about 10 moves in, and even when a game is entirely unique and wasn't in chat gpts training set, it STILL calculates legal and reasonable moves. I think that speaks volumes.

Ownership laws are taking the place of the chieftain when it comes to people who stray from the ideals. — frank

Something like that, I suppose

Is it possible? Could it last if it happened? — frank

One of the interesting aspects of any society is how it deals with the parasites, the people who take but don't give, especially through violence or theft.

Game theory is a lot about this - about studying situations where people cooperate or compete, figuring out what strategies give the most gain.

A society with no property might give unreasonably high rewards to the sociopaths, psychopaths and parasites. You can take anything without giving anything. Have what you want, give back nothing at all. Such a society would be stripped of its resources by leeches faster than you can say "maybe this wasn't such a great idea after all".

An interesting parallel just occurred to me: the phrase "that doesn't concern you" compared with the phrase "that's none of your business"

why are you asking this like it's a homework problem? And why did you ask it on multiple forums? Don't you already have an answer?

I'll start demonstrating that by informing you of something you apparently do not know: the "Chinese room" isn't a test to pass

With the way you're answering I don't think you are capable of understanding what I'm talking about. It's like you don't even understand the basics of this. — Christoffer

Judging by the way you repeatedly talk about "passing the Chinese room", I don't think you understand the basics. Seems more buzzword-focused than anything

"inspired by" is such a wild goal post move. The reason anything that can walk can walk is because of the processes and structures in it - that's why a person who has the exact same evolutionary history as you and I, but whose legs were ripped off, can't walk - their evolutionary history isn't the thing giving them the ability to walk, their legs and their control of their legs are.

There's no justifiable reason to tie consciousness to evolution any more than there is to tie it to lactation. You're focussed too hard on the history of how we got consciousness rather than the proximate causes of consciousness.

No, the reason something can walk is because of evolutionary processes forming both the physical parts as well as the "operation" of those physical parts. — Christoffer

so robots can't walk?

Yes, but my argument was that the only possible path of logic that we have is through looking at the formation of our own consciousness and evolution, because that is a fact. — Christoffer

100 years ago, you could say "the only things that can walk are things that evolved." Someone who thinks like you might say, "that must mean evolution is required for locomotion".

Someone like me might say, "Actually, even though evolultion is in the causal history of why we can walk, it's not the IMMEDIATE reason why we can walk, it's not the proximate cause of our locomotive ability - the proximate cause is the bones and muscles in our legs and back."

And then, when robotics started up, someone like you might say "well, robots won't be able to walk until they go through a process of natural evolution through tens of thousands of generations", and someone like me would say, "they'll make robots walk when they figure out how to make leg structures broadly similar to our own, with a joint and some way of powering the extension and contraction of that joint."

And the dude like me would be right, because we currently have many robots that can walk, and they didn't go through a process of natural evolution.

That's why I think your focus on "evolution" is kind of nonsensical, when instead you should focus more on proximate causes - what are the structures and processes that enable us to walk? Can we put structures like that in a robot? What are the structures and processes that enable us to be conscious? Can we put those in a computer?

Connecting it to evolution the way you're doing looks as absurd and arbitrary as connecting it to lactation.

The alternative is something like the vision of Process Philosophy - if we can simulate the same sorts of processes that make us conscious (presumably neural processes) in a computer, then perhaps it's in principle possible for that computer to be conscious too. Without evolution.

if the only conscious animals in existence were mammals, would you also say "lactation is a prerequisite for consciousness"?

"we know this is how it happened once, therefore we know this is exactly how it has to happen every time" - that doesn't look like science to me.

Evolution seems like an incredibly arbitrary thing to latch on to.

I don't know what you mean by "respects science". You just inventing a hard rule that all conscious beings had to evolve consciousness didn't come from science. That's not a scientifically discovered fact, is it?

The alternative is, it's in principle possible for some computer ai system to be conscious (regardless of if any current ones are). And that they can do so without anything like the process of evolution that life went through

Therefore we can deduce either that all matter has some form of subjectivity and qualia, or it emerges at some point of complex life in evolution. — Christoffer

No, you're making some crazy logical leaps there. There's no reason whatsoever to assume those are the only two options. Your logic provided doesn't prove that.

In order for a machine to have subjectivity, its consciousness require at least to develop over time in the same manner as a brain through evolution. — Christoffer

Why? That looks like an extremely arbitrary requirement to me. "Nothing can have the properties I have unless it got them in the exact same way I got them." I don't think this is it.

it's not necessarily that well suited to philosophy. It's more well suited to disciplines that have explicit agreed upon correct answers, and philosophy seems to have remarkably few of those.