the-podcast guy recently linked this essay, its old, but i don't think its significantly wrong (despite gpt evangelists) also read weizenbaum, libs, for the other side of the coin

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] plinky@hexbear.net 3 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

Sure there is: encoding is taking sand from the river (taking noise from the world into comprehensible inputs) storage is taking the gold, modifying is throwing some bits out or taking them to the smith.

From the bottom up (and in the middle, if we take partial electro, ultrasound or magnetic stimulation) neuroscience andvances are significant but rather vague. We likely know how on molecular level memory works, but that has jack shit to do with information pipelines, but rather rigorous experiments, or in case of machine human interface more like skilled interpretation of what you see and knowing where to look for it (you can ascribe it to top down approach).

Neuroscientists likely dont, but I think you have rather nicer opinion of tech bros than I do or their ideas among people

[–] Frank@hexbear.net 11 points 9 months ago

My opinion of tech bros is that anyone deserving the label "tech bro" is a dangerous twit who should be under the full time supervision of someone with humanities training, a gun, and orders to use it if the tech bro starts showing signs of independent thought. It's a thoroughly pathological world view, a band of lethally competent illiterates who think they hold all human knowledge and wisdom. If this is all directed at tech bros I likely didn't realize it because I consider trying to teach nuance to tech bros about as useful as trying to teach it to a dog and didn't consider someone in an academic field would want to address them.