I mean, that’s the empiric method. Often theories are easier proven by showing the impossibility of how the inverse of a theory is true, because it is easier to prove a theory via failure to disprove it than to directly prove it. Thus disproving (or failing to disprove) free will is most likely easier than directly proving free will.
How about: there’s no difference between actually free will and an infinite universe of infinite variables affecting your programming, resulting in a belief that you have free will. Heck, a couple million variables is more than plenty to confuddle these primate brains.
Ok, but then you run into why does billions of vairables create free will in a human but not a computer? Does it create free will in a pig? A slug? A bacterium?
Because billions is an absurd understatement, and computer have constrained problem spaces far less complex than even the most controlled life of a lab rat.
And who the hell argues the animals don’t have free will? They don’t have full sapience, but they absolutely have will.
So where does it end? Slugs, mites, krill, bacteria, viruses? How do you draw a line that says free will this side of the line, just mechanics and random chance this side of the line?
I just dont find it a particularly useful concept.
I’d say it ends when you can’t predict with 100% accuracy 100% of the time how an entity will react to a given stimuli. With current LLMs if I run it with the same input it will always do the same thing. And I mean really the same input not putting the same prompt into chat GPT twice and getting different results because there’s an additional random number generator I don’t have access too.
If viruses have free will when they are machines made out of rna which just inject code into other cells to make copies of themselves then the concept is meaningless (and also applies to computer programs far simpler than llms).
Asking to prove non-existance of something. Typical.
I mean, that’s the empiric method. Often theories are easier proven by showing the impossibility of how the inverse of a theory is true, because it is easier to prove a theory via failure to disprove it than to directly prove it. Thus disproving (or failing to disprove) free will is most likely easier than directly proving free will.
reductio ad absurdum
How about: there’s no difference between actually free will and an infinite universe of infinite variables affecting your programming, resulting in a belief that you have free will. Heck, a couple million variables is more than plenty to confuddle these primate brains.
Ok, but then you run into why does billions of vairables create free will in a human but not a computer? Does it create free will in a pig? A slug? A bacterium?
Because billions is an absurd understatement, and computer have constrained problem spaces far less complex than even the most controlled life of a lab rat.
And who the hell argues the animals don’t have free will? They don’t have full sapience, but they absolutely have will.
So where does it end? Slugs, mites, krill, bacteria, viruses? How do you draw a line that says free will this side of the line, just mechanics and random chance this side of the line?
I just dont find it a particularly useful concept.
I’d say it ends when you can’t predict with 100% accuracy 100% of the time how an entity will react to a given stimuli. With current LLMs if I run it with the same input it will always do the same thing. And I mean really the same input not putting the same prompt into chat GPT twice and getting different results because there’s an additional random number generator I don’t have access too.
Why don’t they have free will?
If viruses have free will when they are machines made out of rna which just inject code into other cells to make copies of themselves then the concept is meaningless (and also applies to computer programs far simpler than llms).