Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

Well yeah. Emergent behavior was analyzed with a pretty tight technical definition.

Put 5000 AI’s in a soccer stadium and I expect that they’d act like 5000 of us. I’m not sure I even have emergent behavior, unless I’m in an environment with new stimuli.

Does that just mean I do surprising things? I mean, people in soccer/football riots don’t seem to have the best memory or attention either, nor be brains in jars.



Unless you can describe why/how you act in a football stadium with physics or biology, you have emergent behaviors


It seems to me like any attempt to refute that such a description is possible would rely on arguments surrounding the so-called "hard problem of consciousness". These arguments are nearly always tautological, and also nearly always implicitly at the center of discussions around whether AI can be/will be/is already sentient.


It's not just that but also because there is no complete understanding of physics or biology such that we could make use of to predict the behavior of human beings. You need additional fields like psychology, economics, politics and sociology. It's not even clear that we could make sense of human behavior at those levels.


"You need to use psychology (etc) to understand human behavior because there is no complete understanding of physics or biology" to accomplish that goal is exactly one of those tautological claims I was referring to earlier.

Why is it that biology and physics is insufficient to explain human behavior? You can't answer that question beyond attacking the question itself without invoking metaphysics, and there are pretty much no metaphysical claims you can make about human behavior that you can't also make about robot behavior.


> Why is it that biology and physics is insufficient to explain human behavior?

They're insufficient to explain human behavior to humans, which is the thing that matters here. You can't fit a complete physical description of your brain inside your brain.


The gaping hole in my argument is that large language models know nothing about panic. Except kernel panic.

I ain’t claiming these things are conscious. I’m not that guy. I’m the guy pointing out that it’s a model of us. Trained on watching our behavior.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: