• Apathy Tree@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
    7·
    13 hours ago

    This reminds me of the dude who built a computer that technically runs doom inside satisfactory or factorio (I think satisfactory).

    I’m struggling to find the video now, but he wrote a ton of optimization code to make it run faster, because it’s painfully slow. I think the video was sped up 1,000x or so just to show it was, in fact, playing.

  • turdas@suppo.fi
    61·
    20 hours ago

    The source is this (joke) paper: https://arxiv.org/abs/2605.31514

    I will save you some confusion by summarizing the argument. The author shows that you can build a computer inside of AoE2. As a consequence of this, anything that can run on a computer can (in theory; obviously not in practice) run on a simulated computer inside of AoE2. LLMs run on computers, so therefore they can run in AoE2, and therefore anything an LLM is capable of, AoE2 is capable of.

    • AnAmericanPotato@programming.devEnglish
      24·
      21 hours ago

      This is cool, but the framing rubs me the wrong way.

      The assumption of human-like attributes is a bit of a stretch when you can build an LLM in any substrate

      “I can theoretically run arbitrary computer programs inside another computer program” does not hold any philosophical weight.

      We’ve known what Turing-completeness means for many decades now. ANY program you run on your computer can theoretically run on ANY Turing-complete substrate, which includes all kinds of ridiculous things. You could do this with PowerPoint or Minecraft, too. Or with a sufficient number of rocks on a beach.

      If this is your first time learning about Turing-completeness, then…well, that’s cool! Just don’t let it rock your world too hard. :)

      Whether LLMs have any “human-like attributes” has nothing to do with the substrate, beyond the point that different substrates will lead to different levels of performance in practice, and some emergent properties might only manifest at higher levels of performance in practice.

      Whether a Turing machine (i.e. conventional computer) can theoretically do the same things as a human body is still an open question. (I say “human body” instead of just “human brain” because the brain is not responsible for all of human cognition and behavior, despite popular belief.) It might be fully impossible (unlikely, IMHO), it might require a completely unrealistic scale (most likely, IMHO), or it might be downright trivial once we figure out how.

      • esc@piefed.socialEnglish
        11·
        8 hours ago

        Turing machine isn’t a ‘conventional computer’ in any way it’s a model not asomething that can be implemented as described. Philosophical weight has little value anywhere. Author tried to reframe increasingly cultish bullshit that ‘ai’ crowd loves to push.

      • turdas@suppo.fi
        6·
        20 hours ago

        Yeah certain people have really latched onto this paper, when in truth it’s pretty much completely meaningless and its only value is the slight novelty of building logic gates in AoE2.

        The truth is that we don’t really know what consciousness or morality or understanding of natural language is, and we don’t know if substrate makes a difference. Theoretical computer science says it doesn’t, but we live in a physical universe not a theoretical one, so for all we know it might.