The point is that you have to have an idea of what it has access to in its context. Many expect it to work like an omniscient genie and then give up once it turns out that it can't read your mind and you have to be able to halfway-coherently state what you want.
You could have said the same thing about mainframes in the past? I am talking about smaller open source models not huge ones that need spaceships to run.
> Biological computationalism disagrees with substrate independence.
Don't leave me hanging, post citations! I welcome fringe theories when confident statements are followed by the conclusive evidence they imply. If that isn't possible, send chocolate.
But, yes, I can count. And I am comfortable with natural forms, all the way to asymptotic limits. However, I don't put up with uncomputable/undefinable reals. Are you not numeric?
Um, functional computationalism is scifi, not physics in re consciousness. It assigns the same level of reality to written numeric patterns of a dog as to a real dog. And your self for that matter. How can you prove numbers exist physically?
it is just your imagination that has been captured in scifi extrapolations. Humans are the ones that learn millions of times faster lol, based on how little information they need. computational bandwidth for statistical word patterns versus sample efficiency.
You have a point about insight and creativity but I feel you are discounting the value of formal proofs too much. Modern math has a kind of reproducibility crisis in that the number of people who can actually verify recent proofs is often less than 10. There are thousands of proofs that were verified by a few people who are now dead. Should we consider them to still be proven?
Most recent proofs are just as much of a black box to nearly all mathematicians as a 200,000 line Lean proof is.
reply