Thread

1. georgemcbay · 1789884732 · focus · HN ↗

   Blows my mind that so many people just have this hardened internalized idea that we're somehow significantly different than any other animal.

   Sure, we've got them beat on language and planning, but we're currently in the process of being passed up on both those fronts by multi-dimensional arrays of floating point numbers sitting inside of sand. So, like, how special is that then, really?

   1. card_zero · 1789885143 · focus · HN ↗

      Do LLMs grieve?

      1. sssilver · 1789886884 · focus · HN ↗

         Insofar as grieving is an inherently, fundamentally a very particular chemical process, the answer is a resounding “no”.

         1. Ma8ee · 1789887898 · focus · HN ↗

            If you simulate that chemical process in a computer, if necessary a quantum computer?

            1. fennecbutt · 1789892871 · focus · HN ↗

               You don't even need quantum imo.

               On a personal meatbag level emotions are magical and something ineffable.

               From a scientific stance, chemical make brain go happy or sad and there's nothing special or magical about that. Every emotion we feel is because it was evolutionarily valuable for us to do so.

               1. throwaway173738 · 1789915166 · focus · HN ↗

                  This is too mechanistic. You also choose which emotions to pay attention to.

                  1. pixl97 · 1789943309 · focus · HN ↗

                     This is too simple in itself.

                     When your afraid you can choose to ignore the fear, but you are still afraid and it has physical effects that can be measured. There is at least a trinary state of possible outcomes and as the situation space becomes more complex and solutions drift apart on all 3.

            2. sssilver · 1789917837 · focus · HN ↗

               Then, logically speaking, you get a simulation of griefing.

               1. Ma8ee · 1789966977 · focus · HN ↗

                  And in what lies the difference?
         2. fennecbutt · 1789892936 · focus · HN ↗

            That's a very closed definition of grieving. So by your definition a future perfectly simulated human brain cannot grieve because no chemicals are involved?

            Lmao.

            1. icantevenhold · 1789895169 · focus · HN ↗

               Whether anything a perfectly simulated human brain (or other organism see the fruit fly simulated brain) does is actually real - in the same sense it’s real for you and me - is still up for debate i think.

               Assuming it’s possible to perfectly simulate a human brain

               1. sssilver · 1789920930 · focus · HN ↗

                  A “perfect simulation” is no longer a simulation.

                  The definition of the word “simulation” is:

                  > A simulation is the artificial imitation of a real-world process, system, or event using a model

                  As we know, “all models are wrong; some models are useful”.

                  A “perfect simulation” is, then, an oxymoron.

                  1. icantevenhold · 1790187084 · focus · HN ↗

                     Thanks for the semantics, a perfect imitation would be a better description

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.