News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Claude's Character by swid on Monday June 10, 2024 @04:15PM (#40638378)
But I am saying that is the wrong comparison. The LLM doesn’t need to implement a human brain directly. It needs to implement a sophisticated enough simulation of people that the simulation itself contains ”people” who believe in themselves.

I don’t know LLMs do that, but they are excellent function approximators, and the laws of physics which allow for my brain to be conscious also can be considered some function to approximate. If the LLM can approximate that function well enough, then simulated humans would truly believe in their own existence, as I do.

And it isn’t really important whether or not consciousness is part of the simulation or not, if the end result is the simulator is capable of emulating people to a greater extent.

Re:Claude's Character by HarHarVeryFunny on Monday June 10, 2024 @05:29PM (#40639366)
If you wanted to build a behavioral simulation of a human, and knew how to do it, then what advantage would there be to trying to get an LLM to emulate this simulator ?!

Better just code up your simulator to run efficiently on a supercomputer!

Re:Claude's Character by swid on Monday June 10, 2024 @08:57PM (#40641088)
The LLM teaches itself the rules of the simulation by learning to predict what happens next so well.

Presumable, running a human simulation by brute forcing physics at a scale large enough to represent a human is completely infeasible, but we can maybe conceive how it would work. LLMs are an impressive engine for predicting “next” that is actually computationally feasible.