[flagged]
So is the control issue in the larynx or in the brain?
And if it was the brain, could some sort of AI system do brain <> larynx communication for the monkeys? (Via electrodes maybe?)
In any case, you bring up an important issue: can monkeys bitcoin?
Could we backport a blockchain experiment in the same way that demoscene Hungarians have backported math hacks to fuel unexpectedly sophisticated realtime graphics to the C64?
Interesting.
Translating from human language to monkey language = backporting
Would it then be that:
AI language -> human language also equals backporting?
What's the hashrate of infinite monkeys on typewriters?
Related question: which animals understand humans pointing at things?
Word order does not matter, recursion doesn't matter (a two year old can make a sentence go on forever without recursion even)
Yes. We do. Significantly more. It’s our only power. We aren’t stronger or faster or more vicious, we cannot fly or breed dozens of humans at a time or puke honey. We can’t swim the ocean depths or swing through the trees.
But we sure can think, understand and create. For better or worse.
I’m all for not underestimating animals. They are sentient like us.
But not at the cost of dismissing the human animal.
IIRC we actually smell as well as dogs too, if we get down to floor level.
We're also pretty good long-distance runners.
There's no reason to think an LLM would not work for a monkey. Even if it is a different structure than how things work in humans a parallel structure could offer more or less the same benefits.
Anyway I buy the whole LLM thing, consider a baby, they can't talk at all and only become coherent when you talk to eachother just about non stop for 2 or 3 years.
I get excited, happy, sad, jealous, proud and a bunch of other stuff just seeing stuff on a screen.
Anyway, what is life’s concrete reason to be? Does everything need one to be considered valid?
I suspect the problem is the training data. If we don't know what the dolphin squeaks mean, we can't really filter the training data to include only meaningful "language." But I do wonder how far we could get by just dumping a bunch of dolphin recordings into an LLM and getting it to make the same noises...
The other side of that same problem is that we would have no way of knowing whether it's working. Even if it could "communicate" perfectly, we would have no way of understanding it, aside from watching real dolphins interact with it. But maybe we could build an artificial dolphin, load an LLM into it, and drop it in a pool with real dolphins... just to see what happens...
This is an old tradition in popular science, replacing the humans are animals with souls analogy with the current fad. (Analogies to clockworks, printed circuits, et cetera.) They’re wrong because they’re oversimplifying for pithiness. Not explanatory value.
Do models that make abstractions and analogies have explanatory value?
Do memes have explanatory value?
Do quotes have explanatory value?
Yes, this is science. If it makes useful predictions, it has explanatory value. If it doesn’t, it’s cocktail party and TED talk fodder.
You’re asking whether science or popular pseudoscience has more influence?
We all have our own points of view. Yours is certainly an astute observation. But it is not the only one.
False dichotomy. This isn’t science versus religion, philosophy, the humanities or politics.
You repeated a meme: humans are animals plus some nebulous X. I’m calling that out as meaningless; it’s unfalsifiable. You switched to asking about the meaning of words, and are now trying to draw equivalence between your statements and the merits of politics as a category. This is an exercise in false equivalences, red herrings and wronger than wrongs [1].