Jeremy Kalfus — LessWrong

LESSWRONG
LW

Replying toWhat It's Like To Be A Worm (Notes on Borderline Sentience)

What It's Like To Be A Worm (Notes on Borderline Sentience)

The perception that the nematode nervous system is a simple mechanism because it has only 302 neurons itself holds only to the degree that complex subcellular processes do not significantly modulate its functioning. This assumption might be deeply mistaken. There exists a longstanding project to emulate the nematode nervous system in a computer that can operate a robotic worm body. This project, known as OpenWorm, has proven remarkably difficult to solve. After 15 years’ effort, it still remains a work in progress, reflecting how little we really understand even this paradigmatically simple nervous system.

It is absolutely the case that subcellular processes play a significant role in the behavior of C. elegans. I... (read more)

Jeremy Kalfus's Shortform

Jeremy Kalfus

2mo

This is a special post for quick takes (aka "shortform"). Only the owner can create top-level comments.

Jeremy Kalfus2moQuick Take

This might have already been said, but would an innate "will-to-reproduce" be a thing for superintelligent AI, as it is for us humans? Probably not, right? Life exists because it reproduces, but because AI is (literally) artificial, it wouldn't have the same desire.

Doesn't that mean that ASI would be fine with (or indifferent towards) just ending all life on Earth along with itself, as it sees no reason to live.

Even if we could program into it a "will-to-reproduce," like we have, wouldn't that just mean it would go all Asimov and keep itself alive at all costs? Seems like a lose-lose scenario.

Am I overthinking this?

-1

-3

Replying toAn Opinionated Guide to Using Anki Correctly

Jeremy Kalfus3mo

An Opinionated Guide to Using Anki Correctly

Amazing guide! I only wish I had read it earlier.

The thing I don't understand about AGI

Jeremy Kalfus

Jeremy Kalfus, Carl Feynman

Recently I've been hearing a lot about AGI, specifically that it's 5-10 years out. As someone with an interest in neuroscience, I don't understand how any system so much less complex than the human brain would be able to achieve such a thing. To me, I feel that current models are incapable of actual logical reasoning (which I know is a horribly vague idea -- sorry about that) and that any apparent logical reasoning that they are capable of is just a result of the fact that they have been trained on every possible verbal test of logical capacity.

Like, for example, it makes sense that a future LLM would be able to explain a mathematical concept that has been documented and previously discussed but I just can't see it solving existing frontier problems in mathematical theory, as it's a completely different "skillset".

Is my understanding of how LLMs work flawed? Can they perform logical reasoning?

--
P.S. Apologies for the informalities as this is my first post.