Sorry, I don’t necessarily agree with the other person, and the formation of organic compounds doesn’t apply here anyway, but what would you call the sensory inputs that our brains filter and interpret?
No, I’m not arguing anything other than that our brains receive raw data as inputs because they do. Now since we’re jumping to insults immediately, you can kindly fuck off. Toodle-doo!
Attacking me as stupid straight out the gate was the insult, when all i said was “our brains process raw data as inputs”. Falsify that if you want to argue. Now I’m very sorry you’re not capable of understanding the point, but it isn’t my problem. You can fuck off too, because I’m not here to instruct you in the English Comprehension equivalent of doing up your Velcro shoes, you genetic throwback.
Yes, and that was a stupid argument unrelated to the point made that evolution used this raw data to do things, thus raw data in LLMs will lead to AGI. You just wanted debate points for ‘see somewhere there is data in the process of things being alive’. Which is dumb gotcha logic which drags all of us down and makes it harder to have normal conversations about things. My reply was an attempt to make you see this and hope you would do better.
I didn’t call you stupid, I called the argument stupid, but if the shoe fits.
No no see, since everything is information this argument totally holds up. That one would need to categorize and order it for it to be data is such a silly notion, utterly ridiculous and unnecessary! Just throw some information in the pool and stir, it’ll evolve soon enough!
I didn’t want “debate points”, I wanted to know what you would call sensory inputs if not “raw data”. Completely independent of anything else, which I tried to make clear in my post, the clarity which you completely ignored to accuse me of making a stupid argument. I made very specific effort to distance myself from the argument being made by the other poster, because I wanted to ask the one question and the one question alone, so to be lumped in with it anyway is more than galling.
Example: you lot just want to lash out at internet strangers for asking an honest question because it’s in the wrong context as far as you’re concerned. Is that a fair characterisation of your intent? No? Same. So you can take your accusations of intellectual dishonesty and this block, and fuck off.
My dog does linear algebra everytime he pees on a fire hydrant so that he only pees for the exact amount of time needed. Similarly, when I drain my bath tub, it acts as a linear algebra machine that calculates how long it takes for the water to drain through a small hole.
Is this a fun way to look at the world that allows us to more readily build computational devices from our environment? Definitely. Is it useful for determining what is intelligence? Not at all.
Sorry, I don’t necessarily agree with the other person, and the formation of organic compounds doesn’t apply here anyway, but what would you call the sensory inputs that our brains filter and interpret?
The sensory inputs are a continuous stream of environmental data.
Could you not make these kinds of stupid arguments just to score debate points?
No, I’m not arguing anything other than that our brains receive raw data as inputs because they do. Now since we’re jumping to insults immediately, you can kindly fuck off. Toodle-doo!
Where the fuck was the insult? Wild
You’re the one making incoherent illogical driveby comments, clown
Attacking me as stupid straight out the gate was the insult, when all i said was “our brains process raw data as inputs”. Falsify that if you want to argue. Now I’m very sorry you’re not capable of understanding the point, but it isn’t my problem. You can fuck off too, because I’m not here to instruct you in the English Comprehension equivalent of doing up your Velcro shoes, you genetic throwback.
A masterful performance, an opus of ineptitude! Brava!
Yes, and that was a stupid argument unrelated to the point made that evolution used this raw data to do things, thus raw data in LLMs will lead to AGI. You just wanted debate points for ‘see somewhere there is data in the process of things being alive’. Which is dumb gotcha logic which drags all of us down and makes it harder to have normal conversations about things. My reply was an attempt to make you see this and hope you would do better.
I didn’t call you stupid, I called the argument stupid, but if the shoe fits.
No no see, since everything is information this argument totally holds up. That one would need to categorize and order it for it to be data is such a silly notion, utterly ridiculous and unnecessary! Just throw some information in the pool and stir, it’ll evolve soon enough!
The number of rocks in my garden is information. Yet, despite counting them all, I have not found AGI. So I must need more information than that.
Clearly, counting all the rocks in Wales should do it. So much counting.
We stop this man from ending the world via AGI. Ah Ah Ah.
it was straight up “not even wrong”
I didn’t want “debate points”, I wanted to know what you would call sensory inputs if not “raw data”. Completely independent of anything else, which I tried to make clear in my post, the clarity which you completely ignored to accuse me of making a stupid argument. I made very specific effort to distance myself from the argument being made by the other poster, because I wanted to ask the one question and the one question alone, so to be lumped in with it anyway is more than galling.
Example: you lot just want to lash out at internet strangers for asking an honest question because it’s in the wrong context as far as you’re concerned. Is that a fair characterisation of your intent? No? Same. So you can take your accusations of intellectual dishonesty and this block, and fuck off.
My dog does linear algebra everytime he pees on a fire hydrant so that he only pees for the exact amount of time needed. Similarly, when I drain my bath tub, it acts as a linear algebra machine that calculates how long it takes for the water to drain through a small hole.
Is this a fun way to look at the world that allows us to more readily build computational devices from our environment? Definitely. Is it useful for determining what is intelligence? Not at all.