I’m less mentally organised than I was yesterday, so for that I apologise. I suspect the problem is that we’re both working from different ideas of the word intelligence. It’s not a word that has a single definition based on solid scientific grounds. The biggest problem in neuroscience might be that we don’t have a grand unified theory of what makes the mind do “intelligence”, whatever that is. I did mistake your position somewhat, but I think it comes down to the fact that neither of us has a fully viable theory of intelligence and there is too much we cannot be certain of.
I admit that I overreached when I conflated intelligence and consciousness. We are not at that point of theoretical surety, but it is a strong hunch that I will admit to having. I do feel I ought to be pointing out that LLMs do not create a model, they merely work from a model - and not a model of anything but word associations, at that. But I do not want to make this a confrontation, I am only explaining a book or two I have read as best I can, in light of the observations I’ve made about LLMs.
From your earlier comments about different degrees of intelligence (animals and such), I have tried to figure that into how I describe what intelligence is, and how degrees of intelligence differ. Rats also have a neocortex, and therefore likely use the self-same pattern of repeating units that we do (cortical columns). They have a smaller neocortex, and fewer columns. The complexity of behaviour does seem to vary in direct proportion to the number of cortical columns in a neocortex, from what I recall reading. Importantly, I think it is worth pointing out that complexity of behaviour is only an outward symptom of intelligence, but not likely the source. I put forward the “number of cortical columns” hypothesis, because it is the best one I know, but I also have to allow that other types of brains that do not have a neocortex can also display complex behaviours and we would need to make sense of that once we have a workable theory of how intelligence works in ourselves. It is too much to hope for all at once, I think.
So complex behaviour can be expressed by systems that do not closely mimic the mammalian neocortical pattern, but I can’t imagine anyone would argue that ours is the dominant paradigm (whether in terms of evolution or technology, for now), so in the interest of keeping a theoretically firm footing until we are more sure, I will confine my remarks about theories of intelligence to the mammalian neocortex until someone is able to provide a compelling theory that explains at least that type of intelligence for us. I have not devoted my career to understanding these things, so all I can do is await the final verdict and speculate idly with people inclined to do so. I hope only that the conversation can continue to be an enjoyment, because I know better than anyone I am not the final word on much of anything!
Gradually_Adjusting@lemmy.world 2 days ago
I’m less mentally organised than I was yesterday, so for that I apologise. I suspect the problem is that we’re both working from different ideas of the word intelligence. It’s not a word that has a single definition based on solid scientific grounds. The biggest problem in neuroscience might be that we don’t have a grand unified theory of what makes the mind do “intelligence”, whatever that is. I did mistake your position somewhat, but I think it comes down to the fact that neither of us has a fully viable theory of intelligence and there is too much we cannot be certain of.
I admit that I overreached when I conflated intelligence and consciousness. We are not at that point of theoretical surety, but it is a strong hunch that I will admit to having. I do feel I ought to be pointing out that LLMs do not create a model, they merely work from a model - and not a model of anything but word associations, at that. But I do not want to make this a confrontation, I am only explaining a book or two I have read as best I can, in light of the observations I’ve made about LLMs.
From your earlier comments about different degrees of intelligence (animals and such), I have tried to figure that into how I describe what intelligence is, and how degrees of intelligence differ. Rats also have a neocortex, and therefore likely use the self-same pattern of repeating units that we do (cortical columns). They have a smaller neocortex, and fewer columns. The complexity of behaviour does seem to vary in direct proportion to the number of cortical columns in a neocortex, from what I recall reading. Importantly, I think it is worth pointing out that complexity of behaviour is only an outward symptom of intelligence, but not likely the source. I put forward the “number of cortical columns” hypothesis, because it is the best one I know, but I also have to allow that other types of brains that do not have a neocortex can also display complex behaviours and we would need to make sense of that once we have a workable theory of how intelligence works in ourselves. It is too much to hope for all at once, I think.
So complex behaviour can be expressed by systems that do not closely mimic the mammalian neocortical pattern, but I can’t imagine anyone would argue that ours is the dominant paradigm (whether in terms of evolution or technology, for now), so in the interest of keeping a theoretically firm footing until we are more sure, I will confine my remarks about theories of intelligence to the mammalian neocortex until someone is able to provide a compelling theory that explains at least that type of intelligence for us. I have not devoted my career to understanding these things, so all I can do is await the final verdict and speculate idly with people inclined to do so. I hope only that the conversation can continue to be an enjoyment, because I know better than anyone I am not the final word on much of anything!