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. 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.