>>24936
>This is going to need time to work out
That's fine NoidoDev, I understand. Don't wait
too long haha, but take your time and get it right. :^)
In the meantime, I can begin a WIP thread w/o your add'l images/edits to a) keep this current momentum going on everyone's parts, and b) to allow everyone to start getting a direct feel for how the new thread's shaping up. Thereafter, I can easily do a full thread-merge of that into the final one after your images &tc. are ready to go.
>>24940
>I would start the post with an abridged version of my explanation of what cognitive architecture is
Agreed.
>and related threads should be near the top of the post.
That also seems good. However I'm cautious that we don't attempt -- vaguely-speaking -- to re-create our
Library thread (
>>7143) within the OP of this new primary Cognitive thread haha. :^)
>This topic is difficult for many to fully comprehend.
Very true, but that's what this effort is all about. And further, to begin working practically towards some solutions for that need.
FORWARD! :^)
>It is far too easy to mistake various AI/machine learning topic related recognition and response generation such as LLM's as being cognitive in nature when they're potentially components of cognition.
Yes, I'm sure even the experts have some difficulties with this. And, particularly given the Globohomo's widespread
Journo-tier reporting on AI, the confusion is all the more.
>This thread remaining as a scratch pad is important.
>it is important for the main thread to remained locked.
Well that's quite surprising if I understand you aright, Anon. You're saying that the main thread should remain a read-only artifact for the board
permanently, even after it's gotten a good start? How do other anons feel about this suggestion?
>I have been here long enough to see the repetition of ideas and how easy it is for misunderstandings or other reasons to derail threads.
Very true. Even with the best of intentions, its far too easy to sidetrack the main conversations. OTOH, I would argue that this is one of the
charming things about us being human beings
despite my autism usually REE'g over it haha. :^)
> -sidenote: Given the context ITT, we probably shouldn't just ignore this characteristic behavior in devising our robowaifu's own operational systems tbh.
>Given that even I, someone who's taken cognitive courses in uni, learned about the nervous system in med school, and keeps up with relevant news still makes mistakes which could damage the thread, it is essential that it remains locked.
>
:^)
>Chobitsu is one of the only people I trust to keep the thread clean.
Thanks kindly Kiwi. But I wouldn't put too much credence in that, though I do have honest intentions here at the very least haha. :^)
---
> * On (>>24904) as the primary bulk of the suggested OP :
While I generally agree, I think there are a number of potentially-superfluous statements within it, that I'm not entirely sure I can agree with. As one prime example, I'd point out:
> - Anyone who sees "sentience" and "conscience" as something very special or spiritual [should't post in this thread here at all]
That would keep me, myself, from posting ITT lol! :DDD
While I get that this perspective should generally be kept inside other threads (philosophy, Christianity, +/pol/, etc.), I
also fully believe that the only tractable technical solutions for solving all this will, in fact, need to account for the dualism nature of our human souls (cf. the Bible, Newton, Decartes, et al). To do otherwise would be disingenuous on my part; and would, I believe, also hamstring our collective efforts here overall.
Again, this comment is simply to point out that the source post material in question needs some prior edits IMO. Opinions?
>===
-
prose, fmt edit
Edited last time by Chobitsu on 08/27/2023 (Sun) 06:49:43.