I think more caution is warranted here. That argument seems to rely on our experience of reality being an accurate representation of objective reality. There are some ideas that are surprisingly difficult to dismiss that essentially state that our perceptions of reality do not have this property, and that in fact that any organism that is the result of an evolutionary process is really only ever incentivized to evolve a perception system that presents them with what is essentially a user interface. Spacetime itself may just be a data structure generated in the mind as a simplification of some much more complex and informationally overwhelming reality.
didericis|3 years ago
That’s actually precisely why I think evolutionarily adapted embodied perceptual systems need to be a part of any true knowledge: reality is so incredibly complex that we don’t know what our perception is or is not doing. We just know it’s doing something reality based because we exist. Perceptual models don’t need to correspond with reality like actual embodied perception (and corresponding cognition)
I don’t buy the argument that the correspondence with objective reality in evolved perceptual systems is zero as is claimed in that interview, simply because we exist. I think that conclusion is an artifact of precisely the same kind of over abstraction and non-correspondence that invalidates language models as knowledge systems. Our existence means our perception corresponds with at least some kind of compatibility with and ability to navigate through reality.
A system which does not have that embodied evolutionary history with millennia of required correspondence with reality, simplified or not, does not have all of the essential embedded context and understanding of complexity that goes into our sense making. Science is about discovering more of that hidden context, and perhaps these language models can help identify patterns we haven’t seen yet that do in fact correspond with reality. But the model can’t test it’s own correspondence.