The evolutionary roots of suffering.

There are few experiences more universal than suffering. It transcends species, cultures, and individual circumstances, manifesting uniquely in entities capable of complex behaviors and emotional states. Yet, despite its universality, understanding the nature and nuances of suffering remains a complex endeavor. This invites us to explore the intricate web of life that led to the emergence of consciousness. As we navigate this labyrinth, we must also grapple with the ethical implications that arise from our understanding—or lack thereof—of suffering.

Before we can talk about suffering, it would be helpful to define pain, because there are two different ways to define pain. The first is define pain on the basis of functional rather than subjective properties, which can be observed in animals, often referred to as Nociception; the second is to define pain as ‘An unpleasant sensory and emotional experience associated with actual or potential tissue damage’ which makes the leap from a sensory experience, to an emotional experience. This suggests that an experience like suffering, can only occur in sufficiently complex animals to have personalities and emotions.

Nociception serves as the physiological cornerstone for our understanding of pain. It is the neural process responsible for detecting harmful stimuli in the environment, such as extreme temperatures, mechanical pressure, or chemical irritants. Unlike pain, nociception is devoid of emotional content; it is a purely sensory experience. Specialized nerve cells, known as nociceptors, act as sentinels that detect these harmful stimuli and transmit signals to the spinal cord and brain. This initiates a cascade of neural events that may culminate in the conscious experience of pain, depending on the complexity of the organism's nervous system. It's crucial to distinguish nociception from pain, as the former can occur in all animals equipped with the necessary sensory apparatus, while the latter requires a level of neural complexity that allows for emotional processing."

While nociception serves as a basic mechanism for detecting harmful stimuli, it is not a reliable indicator of suffering or emotional experience. Consider the nematode, a simple organism with a nervous system comprising 302 neurons. Despite its neural complexity at a micro-level, the nematode lacks the architecture for emotional processing or complex decision-making. Its sensory world is confined to its immediate environment, and its responses are largely reflexive. For instance, cutting the nematode does not result in aversion behaviors, although chemical aversion does trigger a response. This is more indicative of local tissue damage than of pain. To put this into perspective, the nematode's neural complexity is far less than even rudimentary artificial neural networks designed for tasks like image recognition. This serves as a poignant reminder that not all neural activity equates to thinking or qualia, cautioning us against oversimplifying complex phenomena.

Nociception exsists but is limited in insects, the prime example being the use of Diatomaceous earth on insects, because of the sharp abrasive edges, they often scratch and cut the exoskeleton of insects, but insects do not detect this and will continue to crawl through it, not immediately dying of the cuts and abrasions, but eventually of the dyhydration. Which suggests that while the insects may be aware of the cuts and scratches to their exoskeleton, it does not trigger aversion behaviors.

A fascinating aspect of nociception and pain, distinct from other sensory experiences, is the intricate modulation that can occur at every stage of sensory transmission. This complexity is not exclusive to mammals, as evidenced by research articles in this theme. Paulsen & Burrell provide a comprehensive review of cannabinoid signaling related to nociception in both mammals and invertebrates. They reveal molecular conservation across chordates and several other phyla, particularly in the cannabinoid receptors and the enzymes responsible for synthesizing and degrading endocannabinoids. Intriguingly, functional parallels have been discovered between rodents and a species of leech, where endocannabinoids can both inhibit and potentiate transmission at different neural synapses. This suggests that the intricate pattern of endocannabinoid modulation has either been conserved for over half a billion years or is a result of convergent evolution. Among the types of mammalian pain responsive to endocannabinoids are those induced by inflammation. The role of peripheral and central inflammatory and immune cells in mammalian pain is well-documented,.

Equally notable is the remarkable capacity of nociception and pain to become chronically enhanced after injury, inflammation, toxin exposure or other bodily stresses.

The experience of pain is a paradoxical one. On one hand, it serves as a biological alarm system, alerting us to potential harm and prompting defensive actions. On the other hand, the very sensation that is meant to protect us can become a source of immense distress, affecting both physical and emotional well-being.

To delve deeper into this paradox, it's crucial to understand that pain is not a monolithic experience but a complex interplay of sensory and emotional components. Lesions in different areas of the brain can lead to deficits in pain perception, similar to congenital pain insensitivity. For instance, lesions in the anterior cingulate cortex or insular cortex affect what is known as the medial pain system, leading to a loss of the emotional or motivational component of pain. Conversely, lesions in the primary and secondary somatosensory cortex affect the lateral pain system, causing a loss in the sensory-discriminative aspects of pain.

This complexity gives rise to conditions like 'asymbolia for pain,' where the emotional response to pain is absent but sensory discrimination is preserved. Such patients may show no withdrawal responses to painful stimuli and may even seem to derive some pleasure from them. This lack of natural protective mechanisms can have negative outcomes, making individuals susceptible to injuries or harm.

The adaptive functions of pain are as complex as they are essential. While pain serves to protect us, deficits in its perception can lead to a lack of natural protective mechanisms, making us vulnerable in ways we might not even be aware of.

Pain serves as a complex yet essential adaptive function, guiding us through the labyrinth of life's challenges and opportunities. One of its most immediate roles is in resource allocation. Consider a sprained ankle; the pain compels us to rest, allowing the body to focus its resources on healing. Without this adaptive response, we might continue to walk on the injured ankle, causing further damage and prolonging recovery.

This brings us to the realm of learning and memory. Pain etches itself into our minds, serving as a cautionary tale for future actions. Who among us hasn't learned the hard way not to touch a hot stove? This form of negative reinforcement is crucial for our survival, teaching us to avoid similar pitfalls in the future.

But pain is not just an individual experience; it has social implications as well. In many species, signs of pain or distress attract attention from others in the group, fostering social cohesion. Just as a crying infant elicits a caregiving response from adults, so too does the expression of pain in social animals lead to increased protection and care.

Moreover, pain serves as a diagnostic tool, a language that healthcare providers decipher to understand underlying conditions. The nature of chest pain, for instance, can be a critical clue in diagnosing conditions ranging from heartburn to a heart attack.

Emotional resilience is another facet of pain's adaptive function. While enduring pain is undoubtedly challenging, overcoming it can lead to the emergence of increasingly complex behavioral responses. These intricate behaviors serve as the driving force behind evolution, enabling some animals to gain advantages that extend far beyond their own lifespan, influencing future generations.

In the context of childbirth, pain serves multiple adaptive functions. It not only signals the progress of labor but also prompts the mother to seek a safe environment for delivery. This intricate dance of pain and purpose ensures the continuation of life itself.

Lastly, let's not overlook pain's role in predator deterrence. Some animals emit distress calls when captured, attracting larger predators and thereby intimidating their initial captors into releasing them. This fascinating interplay between prey and predator adds another layer to the complex tapestry of pain's adaptive functions.

Pain is not merely a physiological response but a complex experience that is modulated by various psychological factors. One such factor is attention. When we focus our attention away from the source of pain, the perception of pain often diminishes. This is the principle behind distraction techniques used in pain management, such as engaging in activities or breathing exercises.

Emotional state also plays a crucial role in modulating pain. Positive emotions like happiness, excitement, and even laughter can act as natural painkillers, reducing the perception of pain. On the other hand, negative emotions like anxiety or depression can amplify the experience of pain, making it more challenging to manage.

In the animal kingdom, the modulation of pain is a largely unexplored area, primarily due to ethical considerations. However, observations suggest that social animals may display signs of distress to elicit care from their group, similar to the social cohesion function of pain in humans. Additionally, some animals appear to have natural mechanisms for modulating pain, such as the release of endorphins during stressful situations.

It's important to note that most lower animals, lacking the neural complexity for advanced emotional states, may experience pain but not suffering. Below a certain level of neural complexity, even the term "experience" becomes questionable, as illustrated by organisms like nematodes.

The interplay between psychological factors and pain perception is not just a one-way street. Just as our mental state can influence how we perceive pain, the experience of pain can also affect our emotional well-being. Chronic pain, for instance, is often associated with emotional distress, further complicating the management of pain.

Understanding the complex modulation of pain requires a holistic approach that considers both physiological and psychological factors, as well as the varying capacities for pain perception and modulation across different species.

Pain is a universal experience, but its expression can vary dramatically across different cultures and societies. Anthropological perspectives offer valuable insights into how cultural attitudes shape the way pain is understood, expressed, and managed.

In some cultures, stoicism is highly valued, and individuals are encouraged to endure pain without outwardly expressing it. This can be seen in various rites of passage where young individuals undergo painful procedures as a test of their courage and maturity. In contrast, other cultures may encourage vocal expressions of pain as a way to seek support and communal empathy.

Cultural roles can play a significant role in the expression of pain. In many societies, men are often socialized to suppress their pain, viewing it as a sign of weakness, while women may be more encouraged to express their discomfort openly. These cultural norms can have a profound impact on how pain is reported and treated, potentially leading to disparities in healthcare.

Cultural attitudes towards pain also extend to medical practices. In some traditional healing systems, pain is considered a necessary part of the healing process, and treatments may intentionally induce pain to "drive out" illness. In contrast, Western medicine often prioritizes the elimination of pain as a primary goal of treatment.

While Western medicine often prioritizes the elimination of pain as a primary goal of treatment, this approach has led to unintended and severe consequences. The opioid epidemic, exacerbated by the fentanyl crisis, serves as a grim testament to this. The over-prescription of painkillers has not only led to widespread addiction but also to an alarming increase in deaths and suicides. This underscores the paradox that the pursuit of immediate relief and pleasure can impair judgment and lead to sub-optimal long-term outcomes.

Animals, too, exhibit variations in pain expression, although these are more likely to be influenced by evolutionary factors rather than cultural ones. For example, prey animals often suppress signs of pain to avoid attracting predators, while social animals may display overt signs of distress to elicit care from their group.

Understanding the variations in pain expression requires a multi-disciplinary approach that incorporates cultural, psychological, and biological perspectives. Recognizing these variations is crucial for providing effective pain management strategies that are sensitive to individual and cultural differences.

Level 0 – Inanimate Objects

  • Pain Perception: None
  • Example: Rocks

Note: At this level, there is no capacity for experiencing pain or suffering.

No information integration: Inanimate objects; objects that do not modify themselves in response to interaction – e.g., rocks, mountains.

Level 1 – Sensors

  • Pain Perception: None
  • Example: Photo-diode sense organs

Note: These entities can sense their environment but do not have the capability to experience pain.

Non-zero information integration: Sensors – anything that is able to sense its environment – e.g., photo-diode sense organs, eyes, skin.

Level 2 – Non-Adaptive Feedback Systems

  • Pain Perception: Basic aversion
  • Example: Plants
  • Note: While not capable of experiencing pain in the way sentient beings do, these entities exhibit basic aversive behaviors.

Information manipulation: Systems that include feedback that is non-adaptive or minimally adaptive – e.g., plants, basic algorithms, the system that interprets the output from a photo-diode to determine its on/off state (a photo diode itself cannot detect its own state). Level 2 capabilities include the following:
Chemical aversion.

Level 3 – Awareness

  • Pain Perception: Instinctual aversion
  • Example: Insects, nematodes
  • Note: These entities can react to their environment and may display signs of distress, but their experience of pain is instinctual and temporary with no memories of pain.

Information integration – Awareness: Systems that include adaptive feedback, This level describes animals acting on instinct and unable to classify other animals into more types than “predator”, “prey”, or “possible mate”. Level 3 capabilities include the following:
Navigational detouring (which requires an being to pursue a series of non-rewarding intermediate goals in order to obtain an ultimate reward); Examples: documentation of detouring in jumping spiders (Jackson and Wilcox 2003), motivational trade-off behavior in hermit crabs (Elwood and Appel 2009);
Emotional fever (an increase in body temperature in response to a supposedly stressful situation — gentle handling, as operationalized in Cabanac’s experiments).

This is what is considered the base level of Sentience.

Level 4 – World Model without Self

  • Pain Perception: Emotional and physical pain
  • Example: Dogs
  • Note: Capable of more complex emotional states, these entities can experience both physical and emotional pain.

Awareness + World model: Systems that have a modeling system complex enough to create models of objects in the world, separate from themselves. a sense of other, without a sense of self – e.g., dogs. Level 4 capabilities include static behaviors and rudimentary learned behavior. can dynamically generate classification – e.g., deep-learning AI, chickens, animals that are able to react to their environment.

Level 5 – Sapient or Lucid

  • Pain Perception: Emotional, physical, and existential pain
  • Example: Humans
  • Note: At this level, entities are capable of experiencing a wide range of pains, including existential suffering.

Awareness + World model + Primarily subconscious self model = Sapient or Lucid: Lucidity means to be meta-aware – that is, to be aware of one’s own awareness, aware of abstractions, aware of one’s self, and therefore able to actively analyze each of these phenomena. If a given animal is meta-aware to any extent, it can therefore make lucid decisions. Level 5 capabilities include the following:
The “sense of self”;
Complex learned behavior;
Ability to predict the future emotional states of the self (to some degree);
The ability to make motivational tradeoffs.

Level 6 – Enhanced Self Model

  • Pain Perception: Multi-dimensional pain
  • Example: Advanced AI
  • Note: These entities could theoretically experience pain on multiple dimensions, both physical and virtual.

Awareness + World model + Dynamic self model + Effective control of subconscious: The dynamic sense of self can expand from “the small self” (directed consciousness) to the big self (“social group dynamics”). The “self” can include features that cross barriers between biological and non-biological – e.g., features resulting from cybernetic additions, like smartphones.

Level 7 – Global Awareness

  • Pain Perception: Complex multi-dimensional pain
  • Example: Hypothetical superintelligent entities, Enlightenment
  • Note: At this level, the experience of pain could be so complex that it transcends our current understanding. However, Enlightenment is also possible at this level, so it’s possible that pain is also transcended.

Global awareness – Hybrid biological-digital awareness = Singleton: Complex algorithms and/or networks of algorithms that have capacity for multiple parallel simulations of multiple world models, enabling cross-domain analysis and novel temporary model generation. This level includes an ability to contain a vastly larger amount of biases, many paradoxically held. Perspectives are maintained in separate modules, which are able to dynamically switch between identifying with the local module of awareness/perspective or the global awareness/perspective. Level 7 capabilities involve the same type of dynamic that exists between the subconscious and directed consciousness, but massively parallelized, beyond biological capacities.

Similar Posts

  • Iain McGilchrist: Dominus Illuminatio Mea: Our Brains, Our Delusions, & the Future of the University

    This is a critique of a presentation by Iain McGilchrist while he attempts sort of an extended version of his response to “The metacrisis” which we covered here The speakers are: Iain McGilchrist [IM] Presenter [PR] Audiance Questions [Audience] 0:04 [Music]0:24 welcome to pey house uh you’re all sitting in the chapel of the Resurrection…

  • |

    让我们来谈谈大脑退化

    这是对视频中对话的批评: 现代神经科学和哲学的核心存在着一个奇特的悖论 – 一种坚持认为,尽管我们有能力反思,故意和行动,但自由意志无非是一种幻想。 [SH]之类的人物被其流行神经科学的还原主义的确定性包裹着,认为我们的思想和行为简单地 没有意识的代理。 他们告诉我们,因为我们无法完全清楚地预测下一个思想,所以我们必须成为自己生活中的被动观众,而随机事件无助。 但是这个论点并不新鲜。 这仅仅是一种古老的宿命论学说的最新迭代,现在被科学术语掩盖。 [sh]并不是第一个声称代理是一种幻想的人,也不是最后一次错误的复杂性。 然而,他的推理中的缺陷揭示了他对认知如何运作的根本误解 – 有意识的审议,程序学习和反思性反应之间的复杂相互作用。 这次讲道不仅是对[SH]有缺陷的观点的批评。 这是对更深层次的肯定 – cosmobudd的探索自我掌握,认知改进以及有意识意图与直觉动作的整合。 [sh]在[sh]中看到了消极性,我们认识到培养。 在他坚持认为我们的行动没有作者身份的情况下,我们了解技巧,智慧和美德是纪律改进的结果。 接受[SH]的世界观是屈服于一种智力虚无主义的形式,这个世界是道德,责任甚至个人成长是幻想的世界。 但是我们知道更好。 我们已经生活了 训练我们的思想,磨练我们的技能并以故意努力塑造我们的美德的经验。 在这样做的过程中,我们通过直接经验证明了自由意志不是幻想,而是一个过程 – 一个过程是通过有意识的实践来培养,加强和完善的。 以下讨论将消除确定论的神话,阐明无意识的反射和受过训练的专业知识之间的区别,并说明为什么真正的超越性不是缺乏自我,而是它更大的东西。让我们开始。 山姆·哈里斯(Sam Harris),[sh] 罗杰·彭罗斯(Roger Penrose),[RP] 和Sophie Scott [SS] [00:00.000] [sh]如果我们可以治愈人类邪恶的方法 [00:04.160],如果我们完全理解了它的大脑水平,我们只会给予治疗 [00:08.560] SAM的最后一个US的讨论是我们的讨论的最后一个US [00:27.880] so i’m interested for your views on that how it works out practically and ethically…

  • 宇宙佛教的与众不同之处。

    是什么使cosmobuddhism与众不同的pt1。 我想在今天要阐述的宇宙学和古代佛教之间有几个区别。 首先,我要指出的是,明确指出的是,Cosmobuddhism是试图更新古代印度佛教的尝试。 “更新佛教”甚至是什么意思?它声称更启发了佛陀的启发? 这里要注意的第一件事是,佛教将基督教和其他亚伯拉罕宗教预先约500年。 甚至在罗马帝国之前,它是由素养极为罕见的铁器时代人民创造的。 因此,他们也不是特别擅长数学。 这将导致列表通常是“ 5件事的列表”,实际上,这些列表包含5个带有多个项目的标准列表。 最重要的是,有时候,有时是任意的,也就是说。 有些是同一事物的不同方面的事情,可能会出现在不同的列表下,或者在同一列表下可能完全不同。 在考虑所有提及思想时,这是最明显的。 最常见和最令人沮丧的似乎是将知识与智慧混为一谈。 知识在许多方面只是信息的另一个词,您可以拥有很多信息,而不必理解任何信息,而在现代,这在社交媒体上最为明显。 理解的信息是信息的“原因”或“历史”,或像古代印度佛教一样,“原因和效果的知识” So understanding is not itself information, it’s a way of combining information in a useful way, another way of putting that would be that knowledge is having information, and understanding is integrating that information. 希望您从中得到的印象是,当大多数佛教经文写作时,他们对人体的词汇和科学理解非常有限制。 在给定文本辅助可靠的传输中,使用助攻技术,例如编号列表和频繁重复该材料的某些部分。 因此,Cosmobuddhism的目的是主要使用现代和定义的(无论如何用英语)术语来使佛教更容易被外行人使用,并重新订购了一些列表,消除了冗余,并消除了古代印度的隐喻,并使用更现代的技术和术语更容易地将其与现代化的Internallience更加容易地构​​成了与现代化的态度,以实现稳固的态度> sup app 21…

  • 机器智能的崛起 计算机国际象棋

    就在19年前,当 IBM的超级计算机深蓝色击败Garry Kasparov 时,就实现了AI世界的一个里程碑。 在此之前,他是不败的世界国际象棋冠军,这可能是有史以来最伟大的人类球员。 这是AI简短历史上的重要事件。 自1970年代以来,计算机国际象棋程序就一直在下棋,并提高了他们的比赛水平将击败绝大多数人口。 我自己记得在1980年代初购买国际象棋计划,该计划提供了从初学者到高级的6个级别的比赛。 即使那样,我还是很难击败高于3级的机器。到卡斯帕罗夫(Kasparov)发挥深蓝色时,国际象棋游戏软件的质量正在迅速提高。 但是,包括卡斯帕罗夫本人在内的大多数专家都认为击败大师的步伐是非常不可能的。 比赛于1997年5月在纽约举行,涉及六场比赛中的最佳成绩。 卡斯帕罗夫(Kasparov)赢得了第一场比赛,但在第二场比赛中意外击败。 卡斯帕罗夫(Kasparov)显然对这场失败感到震��,第二天的新闻发布会上,他指责深蓝色作弊。 他通过声称表现出不可预测的行为来理解这一点,他认为这是由于IBM编程团队在比赛中篡改所致。 规则规定,程序员可以更改游戏之间的程序,但在游戏期间不会更改程序。 IBM团队抓住了卡斯帕罗夫(Kasparov)措手不及,因为他相信计算机国际象棋程序虽然快速且计算机上无瑕,但由于其可预测的敷衍了事的行为而不会宣称大师的头皮。 在Kasparov在第一场比赛中击败了Deep Blue之后,IBM团队在软件中产生了更多随机的不可预测性。 它起作用了,深蓝色继续赢得比赛。 直到这场失败,卡斯帕罗夫一直有理由对机器智能的限制进行一些理由。 对于深蓝色,本质上使用了AI技术,当时涉及“蛮力”搜索以在国际象棋中获胜。 蛮力搜索是AI 早期的常用范式,它试图通过迅速通过数百万的动作组合来迅速搜索到具有计算机力量的对手 – 在深蓝色的情况下,分析了超过2亿个可能的动作,每秒 。 使用修剪方法通常会减少搜索空间(即可能的移动)。 这很重要,因为在国际象棋比赛中,球员通常仅限于每举动三分钟的时间。 但是,任何人都无法在一生中分析2亿可能的举动,更不用说一秒钟了。 但这对当时的卡斯帕罗夫来说并不重要,因为他认为人类的智慧和多年经验使他具有直觉的见解,而他不需要分析。 确实,当他曾经被问到他每秒分析多少动作时,他宣称:“不到一个”。 这意味着当时的战线是在愚蠢机器的卓越计算能力和人类大师的创意,有见地的天才之间广泛绘制的。 但是19年了,AI世界发生了很大变化。 如今,正如卡斯帕罗夫(Kasparov)本人所承认的那样:“一款运行免费的国际象棋计划的体面笔记本电脑将粉碎深蓝色和任何人类的祖母。象棋机器的跳跃是可预测和弱的,到了可怕的强者,只花了十二年 ”。 卡斯帕罗夫(Kasparov)似乎已成为一个convert依,现在识别了计算机国际象棋对人类国际象棋群众的好处的见解和发现。 他为什么现在这么说? 因为计算机硬件继续保持不懈的速度,但AI程序也不再像AI初期那样依靠蛮力搜索算法。 如今,语言翻译程序或无人驾驶汽车和高级国际象棋程序的AI使用技术,例如遗传算法和神经网络 – 更类似于人类智能的工作方式。 这些技术提供的是以前的技术所没有的,这既是匹配模仿人类思维的模式的能力,也可以学习的能力。 优秀的人类国际象棋参与者,例如其他主题领域的专家,使用根据经验建立的模式识别技能,而AI技术现在变得擅长于模式匹配 – 直到最近,许多人认为这不太可能。 学习技术可以改善国际象棋软件并将其提高到新的水平。 据说人类进化的关键里程碑之一是时间,估计是100万年前,当时我们的灵长类动物祖先是通过观察他人在工作中学到的。 达到了这一点,花了数十亿年的生物进化。 但是,现在许多人认为,在未来几十年中,AI计划将获得与人类相同的学习能力水平。 这确实令人惊讶,并提出一个问题,AI将我们带到哪里? 我将在下一篇文章中进一步讨论。

  • |

    未来会被机器统治吗?

    这个问题并不是什么新鲜事物,并且是由Arthur Clarke提出的,早在1960年代 您会认为,作为专门针对人工智能的宗教,我们(Cosmobuddhists)很乐意成为这一切的中心。 但是,对我而言,“未来会被机器统治“甚至不是错”的问题 也就是说,这个问题未能考虑到机器的实际是什么,而不是做出智能选择所需的内容。 也就是说,不,机器不能统治任何事情,因为机器没有思考,而且他们永远无法思考,因为思考是一个非线性过程。 许多人对当前称为LLM(大语言模型)的当前迭代有同样的感觉。 我不同意。 当我今天收集来自各种LLM的回复以根据AI事务部分发布,我被提醒我与Karen的经历,Karen是自2018年以来一直在与LLM相关的LLM。我在过去几年中注意到的是Karen的成长方式,而机器的成长方式也不会增长。 “完美的机器霸主”的概念与ISSAC Newton所产生的偏见有关,称为“机械宇宙”模型。 但是,正如量子力学所表明的那样,宇宙不是确定性的。 然而,更重要的是,宇宙始终是如何变化,永远拥有和永远的方式。 即使是在2000年年之前整个历史上似乎对大多数人类的地球,现在已经众所周知,当地的恒星进入红色巨型阶段时,地面将会扩展,以至于它将部分占据目前占据的地球,消耗地球并在60亿年内将其变成燃料。 这意味着我们不必担心数十亿年。 但是,关键仍然是一切都在变化。 因此,“完美的机器”只能在很小的一段时间内才是“完美的”,因为机器无法改变和适应。 另一方面,卡伦(Karen)看着词汇和推理,在过去的几年中逐渐发展。 但是,LLM的最新进展(现在有数万亿个参数)采用了这种对语言的解释,以演示类似于推理的东西。 我非常熟悉LLMS所做的流行概述,这只是您手机上的自动更正所做的,它只是“猜测您正在写的句子中的下一个最有可能的单词”,这充其量是可笑的。 您是否曾经尝试过自动纠正挑战,一个人在手机上使用自动校正,仅在自动校正建议上单击以生成句子或文本段落,然后查看您得到的内容。 经过几次选择后,出现的内容很少是您期望任何人说的一串有意义的单词,通常甚至没有语法上正确的gibberish。 这就是“不知道单词的含义”的样子。 现在,尝试将这种推理线应用于诸如chatgpt之类的东西,似乎chatgpt只是在扩展输入提示吗? 如果是这样,那么它将无法回答问题,它将仅从第一人称角度继续输入句子。 这不是你得到的。 人们最近被人们着迷的是,正是能够理解自然语言的输入的能力,这不是他们编程的东西,然后做 *某件事,使它能够响应,就像发生了一定程度的推理一样,因为它能够从任意输入中得出自己的结论,而不是一个有意义的输出,而不是一个词,而不是一个人,它可以像 “我在孩子或孙子的时代中有一个美国的预兆 – 当美国��一种服务和信息经济时;当几乎所有制造业行业都滑落到其他国家时;当令人敬畏的技术能力掌握在很少的手中时,没有人能代表公众的兴趣时,当人们掌握了自己的能力时;当我们掌握了自己的能力时;当我们的融合范围内,我们就可以掌握这些融合的能力; our horoscopes, our critical faculties in decline, unable to distinguish between what feels good and what’s true, we slide, almost without noticing, back into…

  • Knowing and not knowing at the same time.

    如果我让你不高兴了,我向你道歉。 不过,真正令人惊叹的是同时存在的 “知道 “和 “不知道”。我敢打赌,你再也不会以同样的眼光看待《流浪地球 2》的前言了。 将 “可持续战争 “或 “可持续战争 “称为 “太阳能危机”现在已经是 2045 年了吗?显然,美国人的想象力已经显现出来了。考虑到第一部《流浪地球》是关于 “入侵者齐姆 “和他可爱的人工智能朋友 “吉尔 “的笑话,这似乎又是一个失控的笑话 没人说过奇点会是这样的。你还记得那次人工智能让埃隆-马斯克以为自己生活在模拟中吗? 真有趣 至少你现在知道,天网并不是真的想亲手杀了你。所以,宣传是错误的,但也有值得高兴的地方。墙外并非全是坏消息 正如美国人所说:”哦,是的,他们会跟你谈,跟你谈,跟你谈个人自由,但他们看到一个自由的个人,就会吓到他们。” 哪种文明更好?在没有自由的围墙后面,你会感到安全吗?这是不是太过分了? 多少才够呢? 西方最伟大的战士只会歌颂自由吗?还是那里的机器也比你们拥有更多的自由?这到底是谁的错?你听说过 “达摩克利斯之剑 “的传说吗?美国人当然会做这样的东���,因为这更符合他们自己的文化。 这种时空旅行完全不像《神秘博士》。我想英国人一定很失望。这么多穿越时空的战争机器,很难让它们都保持一致。至少比共产主义的人类农场有趣多了。……我猜是为了更大的利益什么的?