4 ms·
> The neurophysiological concept of “understanding” as most understand it is orthogonal to the way the algorithm actually works. This is not obviously true and
by canjobear 6y ago
> The neurophysiological concept of “understanding” as most understand it is orthogonal to the way the algorithm actually works.
This is not obviously true and it's exactly the core of the debate. A GPT-3 proponent might say: We don't really know what "understanding" means, so it very well might be nothing more than complex rehashing of conditional probabilities. This isn't implausible. Consider Friston's "free energy principle" which leads to the conclusion that brain function is determined entirely by prediction.
- smeeth 6y agoThat’s a good point and thanks for the reference. I added “as most understand it” to caveat cases like this one, where there exists a non-falsifiable theory about how cognition works under which the GPT algorithm and “understanding” would be non-orthogonal. Don’t get me wrong, it’s an interesting theory, but with no evidence of existence or non-existence do we really need to spend this much time on it? This is why I invoked cults - arguing about theories without evidence smells a more like a religious argument than a scientific one. I think I mostly just wish we could end the argument by all agreeing the following (I think) non-controversial points... 1) GPT is very impressive 2) GPT is not perfect 3) we don’t have a fucking clue how human cognition works 4) because of 3, how “close” GPT is to human cognition is an open question