Recent comments in /f/philosophy

[deleted] t1_j9wymon wrote

Reply to The Job Market Apocalypse: We Must Democratize AI Now! by Otarih

Any mention of the democratization of a technology, AI included, without mention of overthrowing capitalism, is completely misguided.

You think that you're just going to vote the means of production into the hands of the people under capitalism? Please.

22

cark t1_j9wtrdj wrote

Reply to comment by TheRoadsMustRoll in The Job Market Apocalypse: We Must Democratize AI Now! by Otarih

> despite the authors wordy arguments AI requires input and only that input (however jumbled) will be returned on a query. if it were really creative it could dream up something on its own and populate a blank sheet of paper with something novel. AI isn't creative. the people that program it might be.

I'm not saying AI is there yet, but I have to disagree there. What would be the, presumably magical, property of the human brain that would make it work outside of its past input ? We also are merely jumbling the input to produce our output. Part of this input is innate, part is learned or sensed, and part is randomness. If the creative output is the result of a creative process that takes place in the brain, that computation is still a physical process. That process does take place in the physical realm and as such must be the result of some initial conditions.

That "jumbling" you're dismissively referring to is how we eventually got to be humans in the first place. The highly evolved, and selected for, brain we enjoy is the product of such a process. Not only that, but the brain also works that way too ! Besides the input data I evoked earlier, we're subjected to randomness by the very act of perceiving that same input. We're directed jumbling machines ourselves.

Current AI algorithms and model sizes may not be up to par yet, their creativity remaining quite benign. But this is creativity nonetheless.

13

ANightmareOnBakerSt t1_j9wsg3m wrote

Reply to comment by Otto_von_Boismarck in Reality is an openness that we can never fully grasp. We need closures as a means of intervening in the world. | Post-postmodern philosopher and critic of realism Hilary Lawson explains closure theory. by IAI_Admin

I call it a bottle only so that others may know what I am talking about. The actual word or wording I use for the name is irrelevant it could be bottle or botella if I was in Mexico. Saying it is a collection of particles, is just another way of describing the thing I am calling a bottle. If a less common used way of describing the thing that I am calling a bottle. It seems to me that your comment further proves that this is essentially a semantic issue.

Further, I would insist that the thing I am calling a bottle exists and I only describe it with the language I have using the data from my senses.

It seems to me though, that you seem to think, that the language I use, and the data I collect, from my senses are what the thing I am calling a bottle actually is.

The world around us is not the data from our senses. The data from our senses only informs us of what the world around us actually is.

5

Otto_von_Boismarck t1_j9wld4k wrote

Reply to comment by krussell25 in Reality is an openness that we can never fully grasp. We need closures as a means of intervening in the world. | Post-postmodern philosopher and critic of realism Hilary Lawson explains closure theory. by IAI_Admin

Objects with intrinsic properties exist. Which would be whatever are the foundational blocks of all of reality. Quantum fields or what have you. Everything else is extrinsic, so are emerging from those quantum fields interacting with each other. Kind of like how everything on our computer screens are just bits switching on and off.

−1

quantumdeterminism t1_j9whmpf wrote

Reply to comment by edstatue in Reality is an openness that we can never fully grasp. We need closures as a means of intervening in the world. | Post-postmodern philosopher and critic of realism Hilary Lawson explains closure theory. by IAI_Admin

This is an interesting take.

For all we know, Maybe there is an inverse correlation there, the more conscious you are, the more disconnected you are from objective reality.

May be the ants really have the upper hand on us when it comes to reality. There is just no way to know.

11

krussell25 t1_j9whj4y wrote

Reply to comment by DriftMantis in Reality is an openness that we can never fully grasp. We need closures as a means of intervening in the world. | Post-postmodern philosopher and critic of realism Hilary Lawson explains closure theory. by IAI_Admin

I don't think you could every truly understand the reality experienced by most other people. I hate to simplify, but I don't want to type a book here either - consider a child born and raised in an American, middle class, very religious family, a child born in poverty in Harlem to a single mother with emotional and addiction issues, and a child born into excessive wealth. Are they likely to see 'truth' or 'reality' the same way?

3