So a lot here that I disagree with. You start out by pointing out how much more information humans ingest, but there's no reason why amount of information ingested leads to a fundamentally different organism. In the exact same way, I eat a lot more food than an amoeba, but we're still both animals. Scale doesn't make a difference.
The idea that human emotions are somehow unique from thoughts needs to be proven to me. IMO emotions are just thoughts that happen too quick for language. This discretization of the human experience is unnecessary, and like I said before it would be immediately challenged in a philosophy setting. So would your claim that humans exhibit some kind of reasoning or morality that’s distinct and unique. Modern philosophy is quite clear that this is bullshit. I was just reading Nietzsche today and I can feel him rolling over in his grave right now.
Also, the base of machine learning centers around simulating emotions: if the AI does something good, it's rewarded. If it does something bad, it's punished. We created the whole algorithm by simulating Freud's pleasure principle and who are we to say that the simulation is any different from the real thing?
> It's not surprising to me that people who are focused on technology and AI would anthropomorphize machines, and then claim that (because they aren't aware of how the brain works) "we don't know how the brain works." I had similar beliefs, as a software engineer.
Well I'm actually much more knowledgeable about humanities than I am about tech, and IMO the tech world is at the forefront of making our abstract philosophical understanding of the brain concrete. Neural networks and LLMs are the most successful method of creating cognition. I'm sure we'll find that there's a lot more to do, but this could very well be the fundamental algorithm of the brain, and I don't see any reason to discount that by saying what you've been saying in this comment thread.
Also, the base of machine learning centers around simulating emotions: if the AI does something good, it's rewarded. If it does something bad, it's punished. We created the whole algorithm by simulating Freud's pleasure principle and who are we to say that the simulation is any different from the real thing? > It's not surprising to me that people who are focused on technology and AI would anthropomorphize machines, and then claim that (because they aren't aware of how the brain works) "we don't know how the brain works." I had similar beliefs, as a software engineer. Well I'm actually much more knowledgeable about humanities than I am about tech, and IMO the tech world is at the forefront of making our abstract philosophical understanding of the brain concrete. Neural networks and LLMs are the most successful method of creating cognition. I'm sure we'll find that there's a lot more to do, but this could very well be the fundamental algorithm of the brain, and I don't see any reason to discount that by saying what you've been saying in this comment thread.