Comment by coldtea

>We are much more than weights which output probable next tokens. You are a fool if you think otherwise. Are we conscious beings? Who knows, but we’re more than a neural network outputting tokens.

That's just stating a claim though. Why is that so?

Mine is reffering to the "brain as prediction machine" establised theory. Plus on all we know for the brain's operation (neurons, connections, firings, etc).

>There are parts of our brains which are understood (kinda) and there are parts which aren’t. Some parts are neural networks, yes. Are all?

What parts aren't? Can those parts still be algorithmically described and modelled as some information exchange/processing?

>but the training humans get is coupled with the pain and embarrassment of mistakes

Those are versions of negative feedback. We can do similar things to neural networks (including human preference feedback, penalties, and low scores).

>the ability to learn while training (since we never stop training, really)

I already covered that: "The main difference is the training part and that it's always-on."

We do have NNs that are continuously training and updating weights (even in production).

For big LLMs it's impractical because of the cost, otherwise totally doable. In fact, a chat session kind of does that too, but it's transient.