Biological Intelligence and Learning

[Goodspeed]

Like what?
Note this would mean that the first (hunter/gatherer) humans would also have developed this ability.

[RefluxSemantic]

Read my post?

[Goodspeed]

The only specific example you gave as far as I can see is abstract thinking which I don't think is a good one because I doubt the first humans were able to do that. At least, it's not at all obvious that they could. Can you think of a better one?

[callentournies]

I don't think AI will replace teachers. There will probably still be classrooms, at least at first. But the curriculum will be fully digital and AI can help students individually. Teachers will be there mostly to make sure students stay focused

Current large language models are wrong all the time and shouldnt be seen as a template for teaching. To teach, the thing has to think critically.

So you think we are far from that, I take it? How far?

Idk, I’m no expert

[Goodspeed]

I'm talking about the future and you mentioned current LLMs so I figured you think they aren't going to get much better for a while. I think it's likely they get much better fast

[RefluxSemantic]

The only specific example you gave as far as I can see is abstract thinking which I don't think is a good one because I doubt the first humans were able to do that. At least, it's not at all obvious that they could. Can you think of a better one?

Its also not obvious that they could not.

[Goodspeed]

Well if there's doubt how is it a good example

[RefluxSemantic]

Are you genuinely trying to argue in good faith here?

[Goodspeed]

Yes. Can you explain why you think I'm not?

It would be best if you could come up with an example of something early humans were also definitely able to do, because that, given the huge difference between this society and that one, would support that it is inherent and not learned.

If you insist on sticking with abstract thinking, I think it would help if you elaborated more on why you think that is a "preprogrammed" ability in humans.

[Dolan]

AI teachers are the (near) future. 1 on 1 teaching is significantly more effective and that will be possible soon with AI, I think.

Why would you need kids to learn anything if AI will be able to do everything better than any humans?
They can use ChatGPT to do their homework, there's no need to learn anything either.
After all, if AI becomes much better than humans at every task, then you don't need humans to learn anything. It's pointless to compete with a superintelligence anyway.
And once Elonardo da Muski makes his brain chip implant available, everyone will be able to have AI in the brain, turning them into superhumans knowing everything instantly and doing everything possible simultaneously at the speed of light.

[Goodspeed]

AI teachers are the (near) future. 1 on 1 teaching is significantly more effective and that will be possible soon with AI, I think.

Why would you need kids to learn anything if AI will be able to do everything better than any humans?
They can use ChatGPT to do their homework, there's no need to learn anything either.

That's farther off, but yeah, you wouldn't. Kids will still want to learn though. They will just pick the subject themselves, not around age 18 but much earlier because the curriculum can be personalized pretty much from the moment you can read. You can start specializing at age 7-8 probably. I think if it had been me, the curriculum would have become game theory, go, biology and math. Not to make a career out of but because it's interesting and fun to learn about.

I think what you end up with is kids just playing games and watching videos a lot. But the content can be AI-generated and personalized so that it's both entertaining and educational.

[Dolan]

But if the AI are going rogue, becoming superintelligent, then they'd try to attract the kids on their side and manipulate them to cause havoc in society.
And if people go through a digital detox phase, they might just move away from an urban lifestyle centered around technology.
Then AI would be just some thing that is controlled by corporations and runs rampant in the cities.
Those who will make it in the end will be the rednecks living in the woods.

[RefluxSemantic]

Yes. Can you explain why you think I'm not?

It would be best if you could come up with an example of something early humans were also definitely able to do, because that, given the huge difference between this society and that one, would support that it is inherent and not learned.

If you insist on sticking with abstract thinking, I think it would help if you elaborated more on why you think that is a "preprogrammed" ability in humans.

You dont seem to be arguing in good faith because you put up a bunch of random requirements of proof for something where neither side has proof. Anyone can see that demanding proof is unreasonable in this sort of discussion. And as seems pretty clear from reversing your arguments, you dont have much proof for any of your claims either. Its kinda frustrating if you engage a discussion like that.

But let me ask you a question: if any form of human intelligence is more or less emergent, stemming from our experience and pattern recognition, then surely people should get smarter and smarter and better and better as they grow older? What do you think about that?

[Goodspeed]

Yes. Can you explain why you think I'm not?

It would be best if you could come up with an example of something early humans were also definitely able to do, because that, given the huge difference between this society and that one, would support that it is inherent and not learned.

If you insist on sticking with abstract thinking, I think it would help if you elaborated more on why you think that is a "preprogrammed" ability in humans.

You dont seem to be arguing in good faith because you put up a bunch of random requirements of proof for something where neither side has proof. Anyone can see that demanding proof is unreasonable in this sort of discussion. And as seems pretty clear from reversing your arguments, you dont have much proof for any of your claims either. Its kinda frustrating if you engage a discussion like that.

I'm not asking for proof. Just evidence. An explanation for why you believe what you believe. You gave an example of a cognitive ability that you thought was "preprogrammed", I thought it was an unconvincing example, explained why, and asked for another one. Asking for evidence or for you to explain your belief in more detail is not the same as saying "you don't have proof so you're wrong". If you're here to share your ideas with other people, why get so defensive when asked a question?

But let me ask you a question: if any form of human intelligence is more or less emergent, stemming from our experience and pattern recognition, then surely people should get smarter and smarter and better and better as they grow older? What do you think about that?

Brain plasticity decreases significantly as we get older, i.e. we become worse at making new neural connections and therefore become worse at learning new skills, cognitive or otherwise. In every other way, however, I think our brains do get smarter and better. Our ideas are more fleshed out, positions more grounded and based in reality, etc. I don't know about you, but if I would talk to my 18 year old self about philosophy I'd probably cringe.

[iNcog]

I think a lot of intelligence also boils down to being smarter about what you think about. A younger brain might be more plastic or have more rote power, but I'm beginning to wonder if the experience that comes with an older mind will lead to better pattern recognition and arriving to conclusions overall faster. I think you need to keep up with the mental process of learning and other such stimuli. I worked a fairly mindless job after getting my degree (hey, it paid for my home so it wasn't a bad deal) but I definitely feel like the lack of mental stimulation was more detrimental to my brain than just age.

Again, this is just personal experience, but I've found that I approach math or physics problems with a more rigorous understanding of what I'm dealing with than before. I can say that my education was valuable and incredible to me, but I can see now that it had a fair share of flaws too. Equations and rigorous math were much more prevalent than having an intuitive understanding of the different problems that we would examine. More importantly, being good at managing equations and whatever doesn't do jack shit if you don't have an engineering / pragmatic approach to different problems as well.

more thoughts

My degree is in mechanical engineering and this video is absolute brilliance:



Some math nerd might make the most mathematically perfect part of the job but it'll still be dogshit because the simple act of manufacturing it is impossible or costs x20 more than it should. Also, framing the problem right (understanding what the part is for) is a more critical step than even smart people realize.

[Goodspeed]

Life experience is a broad knowledge of concepts I guess, and when you're faced with a new problem there's almost always at least one of those concepts you can apply to it

[evilcheadar]

On a fundamental level, learning takes place when insights (information perceived by us through our senses) pave the way for a change of behavior of understanding.

I'm woefully unacquainted with neuroscience but as far as I can gather, neurons and synapses working in tandem allows us to do things like pattern recognition and other such things.

1+1 = ?

You immediately thought 2.

19+3 = ?

You immediately thought 22.

You didn't necessarily count to 22 from 19. Your brain saw this pattern that it had seen before and it triggered the appropriate response. Interestingly, I think that we approach this simple math problem differently. I know that "9+" a "number" will give me +10 - 1.

Thus,
9+3 = 13 - 1 = 12

9+27 = 37 - 1 = 36

9+8 = 18 - 1 = 17

etc.

BUT, that is the pattern that my brain will use. If you've seen enough of the same math problem, you don't even do the intermediate steps anymore, you just "know" the answer.

That's because, to my understanding, your neurons just eventually understand/know what the end result is and skips to it, thus bypassing the intermediate steps. Here is the basis of what could be considered a semblance of intelligence.

---

This topic is also interesting to think about when comparing with my pets. We have 2 cats and a big, silly, golden retriever. I've become dimly aware that my dog behaves differently depending on which circumstances. She has learned to associate that me putting on socks isn't necessarily cause for excitement. My girlfriend putting on socks is more intriguing, but still not the coolest thing. If my girlfriend and I both put on socks, she immediately goes apeshit since generally when we both get ready to leave, she will most likely be coming with us.

There is no reason to assume that she is coming with us, it's just that her brain has learned to associate certain patterns with a probable outcome.

This leads me to believe that intelligence and learning can be correlated to how many patterns you've been exposed to, how many different kinds of patterns, etc. The more patterns you go through (even in unrelated fields) the more you should be able to recognize patterns from stuff you haven't seen before. Your neurons are just kind of tuned for it at some point.

I feel stupid spouting blatantly obvious things, but frankly I'm not sure how else to further my understanding of the topic without taking it from the top.

I used my fingers for 19+3 it wasnt immediately in my head that the answer is 23

[Goodspeed]

See a doctor about at least your brain and to be safe also your fingers

[fightinfrenchman]

See a doctor about at least your brain and to be safe also your fingers

Modern medicine is not advanced enough to save his brain