this post was submitted on 03 May 2025
7 points (100.0% liked)

chapotraphouse

13818 readers
771 users here now

Banned? DM Wmill to appeal.

No anti-nautilism posts. See: Eco-fascism Primer

Slop posts go in c/slop. Don't post low-hanging fruit here.

founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Wheaties@hexbear.net 2 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) (13 children)

Eh, the last few decades of UI development has all been in obscuring as much of the actual workings of a computer as possible. Throw that in with pop culture that treats the computational theory of mind as de facto truth, rather than just one of many possible explanations and... it's unfortunate, but understandable.

I kinda think about it like cars. So, like, I know fuck all about how an engine actually works. The nice thing is I don't need to know that, even though I use and interact with them every day. But even in that ignorance, the way a car is set up and functions communicates certain realities about it. I'm not mystified by it. I know it's just a machine, that there are certain limitations; spaces it cannot navigate or that it can't just Go forever without maintenance or fuel.

Now, imagine a world where as much of the car is being hidden as possible. People still use them, depend on them just as much as they do in our real world. But the way it functions is hidden in the design. Imagine if owners couldn't pop the hood and see the engine. If refueling was behind closed (garage) doors. Hell, if the wheels themselves were completely hidden. It's all still there, but you wouldn't even know to look for it if it wasn't your job, if you weren't a trained specialist. All the general public really knows is that you get in and Transportation happens. It'd be understandable if they start getting funny ideas about how it works and whats even possible from cars.

I know that's something of a clunky metaphor, but it's pretty much where we're at with computers

[–] semioticbreakdown@hexbear.net 1 points 5 days ago (3 children)

the thing that really gets me is that even if the computational theory of mind holds, LLMs still dont constitute a cognitive agent. cognition and consciousness as a form of computation does not mean that all computation is necessarily a form of cognition and consciousness. its so painful. its substitution of signs of the real for the real; a symptom of consciousness in the form of writing has been reinterpreted to mean consciousness insofar as it forms a cohesive writing system. The model of writing has come to stand in for a mind that is writing, even if that model is nothing more than an ungrounded system of sign-interpretation that only gains meaning when it is mapped by conscious agents back into the real. It is neither self-reflective nor phenomenal. Screaming and pissing and shitting myself everytime someone anthropomorphizes an LLM

[–] Wheaties@hexbear.net 1 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) (2 children)

bro, what if we just made the Chinese Room bigger? and like had a bigger rulebook?

[–] Philosoraptor@hexbear.net 2 points 5 days ago

Functionalism and its consequences have been a disaster for the human race.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (10 replies)