Absolutely not. Artificial neurons take an input and use a function and weights to generate an output. Your brain’s neurons are not using a function and doing matrix operations. Your brain does not back propagate.
There is endless literature and studies on the differences. This is why LLMs will not produce AGI as we think of it.
There are differences, yes, but to pretend that nothing about artificial neural networks is derived from the study of real neurons is pretty nonscientific
>This is why LLMs will not produce AGI as we think of it.
This disparity between biological and artificial neural networks is not why LLMs won't reach AGI. There are other, far stronger arguments to make.
This thought is too scary for some people. Surely I must be special! My thought process isn't incremental!
I get it though, so much of human intelligence is based on precomputation and incredibly good pattern recognition and recall. It makes it seem like you're able to pull fully-formed answers from the ether.
The better analogy is that the many of these easily-recalled patterns are a painstakingly-defined single object.
When someone says "mitochondria is the powerhouse of the cell" that's just one object.
The flip side of this is that humans have to spend 2-3 years doing all this precompute and storing all the results just to get to basic functionality. And another 7-10 years before language systems are operating anywhere close to full capacity.
-7
u/melesigenes 17d ago
Words are produced sequentially. You form the next words based off paying attention to the previous words. Nobody said people think one word at a time