those two words only describe AI models, as they are models. A "world model" is worse than those two words as it is oxymoronic.
The idea that words and space are being conflated as a formula for spatial intelligence is fundamentally absurd as our relationships to space have no resolution, both within any one language and worse, between them, as language is arbitrary. Language and thought are entirely separate forms. Aphasia has proved this since 2016.
AI developers have to face the music, these impoverished gimmicks aren't even magic, they are bunk. And debunkable once compared to the sciences of the brain.
Is that a more convoluted way to say that a next thing predictor can't exhibit complex behavior? Aka the stochastic parrot argument. Or that one modality can't be a good enough proxy for the other. If so, you probably have to pay more attention to the interpretability research.
But actually most people should start with strong definitions. Consciousness, intelligence, and other adjacent terms have never been defined rigorously enough, even if a ton of philosophers think otherwise. These discussions always dance around ill-defined terms.
Marshferm|3 months ago
The idea that words and space are being conflated as a formula for spatial intelligence is fundamentally absurd as our relationships to space have no resolution, both within any one language and worse, between them, as language is arbitrary. Language and thought are entirely separate forms. Aphasia has proved this since 2016.
AI developers have to face the music, these impoverished gimmicks aren't even magic, they are bunk. And debunkable once compared to the sciences of the brain.
https://mcgovern.mit.edu/2024/06/19/what-is-language-for/
orbital-decay|3 months ago
But actually most people should start with strong definitions. Consciousness, intelligence, and other adjacent terms have never been defined rigorously enough, even if a ton of philosophers think otherwise. These discussions always dance around ill-defined terms.
grantcas|3 months ago
[deleted]