Comment by the_af
4 years ago
> I don't think the computational approach is an interesting question.
Great, so we agree then!
> No one thinks brains operate like software neural networks
A bold claim.
> (not sure what "pattern marching GPT-like algorithm" means - it is just a neural network).
Yet you understood me perfectly.
Anyway, you are more well read than me on this subject, yet we both agree we are not near general AI.
>> I don't think the computational approach is an interesting question.
> Great, so we agree then!
Maybe? I think all forms of computation are equivalent, so if the brain is implemented in the same way as a neural network is uninteresting. They can do the same thing (which is interesting).
> yet we both agree we are not near general AI.
Sure. My disagreement is with the idea with your original statement:
"Translating ambiguous symbols to meaning and combining them in meaningful ways is a big deal which, apparently, these AI models cannot do. They can just parrot things."
Modern AI systems can do this, and do not just parrot things.
They are capable of novel outputs.
This is because the models have sufficient "understanding" to manipulate "things" (latent vector representations, which you call symbols) to output novel but meaningful outputs.