Submitted by Singularian2501 t3_zm22ff in MachineLearning
mocny-chlapik t1_j08w90k wrote
Can aiplanes fly? They clearly do not flap their wings so we shouldn't say they fly. In the nature, we can see that flying is based on flapping wings, not on jet engines. Thus we shouldn't say that airplanes fly, since clearly jet engines are not capable of flight, they are merely moving air with their turbines. Even though we can see that the airplanes are in the air, it is only a trick and they are actually not flying in the philosophical sense of that word.
leondz t1_j0a9tdd wrote
People fly airplanes. Airplanes don't fly on their own.
respeckKnuckles t1_j0ajskv wrote
Airplanes can fly on autopilot. Autopilot is part of the autopilot-using plane. Therefore, at least some airplanes can fly on their own.
leondz t1_j0cjg4x wrote
autopilot helps the pilot. it requires the pilot. who flies the plane
respeckKnuckles t1_j0ctc2w wrote
WikiSummarizerBot t1_j0ctdx6 wrote
[Autonomous aircraft](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autonomous_aircraft#:~:text=An autonomous aircraft is an,unmanned aerial vehicle or drones)
>An autonomous aircraft is an aircraft which flies under the control of automatic systems and needs no intervention from a human pilot. Most autonomous aircraft are unmanned aerial vehicle or drones. However, autonomous control systems are reaching a point where several air taxis and associated regulatory regimes are being developed.
^([ )^(F.A.Q)^( | )^(Opt Out)^( | )^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)^( | )^(GitHub)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
leondz t1_j0cugwd wrote
Surely you're not contending that autopilots
> Airplanes can fly on autopilot. Autopilot is part of the autopilot-using plane.
are only used in the handful of autonomous flights? also: if autonomous flights were reliable, and could fly reliably, they'd be used more! but they're not, because the problem isn't solved, because good autonomous flight isn't there, because autopilots can't reliably fly planes
CherubimHD t1_j090ds4 wrote
Except that there is not philosophical understanding of the act of flying.
blind_cartography t1_j09jjcl wrote
There is a philosophical understanding of what we mean by the word 'flying' though. It's still a little bit obtuse of an argument, since flying and thinking are quite different conceptual categories (maybe birds would argue different), but the point that we should not limit our definition of thinking (and knowing, believing, etc) to exactly how human's do it is spot on since i) many humans' thinking can't really be explained either and ii) I've met many humans whose output was purely a result of fine-tuning a base statistical phenotype on temporally adjacent stimuli.
economy_programmer_ t1_j098oz2 wrote
I strongly disagree.
First of all, you should define the "philosophical sense of fly", and second of all, try to imagine a perfect robotic replica of the anatomy of a bird, why that should not be considered fly? And if it is considered flying, what's the line that divides an airplane, a robotic bird replica and a real bird?
I think you are reducing a philosophical problem to a mechanical problem.
Nameless1995 t1_j09c3f0 wrote
It was a satire.
economy_programmer_ t1_j09cozr wrote
I don't think so
Nameless1995 t1_j09eifz wrote
/u/mocny-chlapik thinks OP paper is suggesting that LLMs don't understand by pointing out that differences in how humans understand and how LLMs "understand". /u/mocny-chlapik is criticizing this point by showing that this is similar to saying aeroplanes don't fly (which they obviously do under standard convention) just because of the differences in the manner in which they fly and in which birds do. Since the form of the argument doesn't apply in the latter case, we should be cautious of applying this same form for the former case. That is their point. If you think it is not a satire meant to criticize OP, why do you think a comment is talking about flying in r/machinelearning in a post about LLMs and understanding?
Pikalima t1_j0az5t9 wrote
I don’t know who was the first to use the analogy to bird flight, but it’s a somewhat common refutation used in philosophy of AI. That’s just to say, it’s been used before.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments