At the neuronal level, it involves secondary connections biasing receptive fields.
E.g., a high-level auditory neuron might primarily fire in response to high-pitched voices, but if you hear someone say your name in a high-pitched voice at a party, you can bias that neuron to try more selectively fire in response to just their voice, "tuning out" similarly-pitched voices.
Is it really their comparative advantage? Perforce can use Claude too but can amortize the cost over many customers so it should be cheaper and faster to reuse.
I mean 30k CLs per day isn't much. That's one every few seconds. Well within what a decent perforce setup can do with enough replicas.
We can assume there is some price that would clear those Claude hours, especially as all the labs seem to constantly struggle with overload. So it's not free, there is opportunity cost to using Claude themselves.
Lots of animals communicate with each other, I think we agree. If we can automatically translate their communicative utterances into English (or any other utterances that we understand), in general, that would be remarkable, and useful! Who cares whether those utterances qualify as "language".
My whole point is what we could communicate would be profoundly limited. It's like how we can communicate with dogs to a certain extent, but we're not telling them bedtime stories. The comment I responded to originally is fantasising an absurd degree of complexity in communication which is profoundly unrealistic.
> Younger signers had developed a richer vocabulary for mental states—concepts like believe, remember, forget, understand. They were much better than the original older signers at tasks requiring them to reason about what another person thinks or knows. Later, as the older signers picked up those mental-state terms from younger people, some of them improved on the same tests. Senghas describes it as language giving them new insight into other people’s thinking and motivations.
I see several likely stories:
* Much animal communication is practical, descriptive of the present (nothing abstract, or very few abstract concepts)
* If a species could expand its communication, it would give it more powerful tools and allow for more meaningful conversation with humans
* If such a thing is possible, it will be extremely disruptive to that species
I think if you could communicate about abstract ideas with your dog, you could exchange bedtime stories. However, I don't think such a thing is possible today, and it's not clear what species (if any, besides humans) will, in fact, be able to learn such things
Nicaraguan sign language is evidence for an innate language capacity, not that it is an invented technology and certainly not evidence for Sapir Whorf.
Communication is a two-way street, with both parties negotiating and evolving some "communication protocol" over time. We won't know how far we'll be able to go until we're able to try.
Except when we do, but it doesn't make for flashy press releases. Pet owners, vets, farmers throughout history - anyone who lives alongside animals, cares for them, and is open to developing an emotional relationship with them, knows animals are more than just small finite state machines made of meat. But it takes time to spot and learn the patterns of behavior, and as I said, it's a two-way street; the animal has to "open up" and learn you as much as you have to learn them.
It is a kind of thing that's difficult to cleanly verify and reproduce, and it's also kinda mundane. The cases that made headlines look like Clever Hans the other commenter mentioned.
I imagine that a better classifier, some general AI system that gets to learn and observe the animals, would be able to tease out the patterns and then translate them to English, and then that would be reproducable and make for flashy headlines.
reply