4 ms·

Very few people are capable of "investigating what things are" with "critical reflection", usually trained professionals in their field of expertise. Most peopl

Very few people are capable of "investigating what things are" with "critical reflection", usually trained professionals in their field of expertise. Most people think by correlation and adjust based on the feedback. I think with the right feedback an AI could get by with parroting and correlations, and parroting becomes critical reflexion at some threshold of complexity.

AnimalMuppet 4y ago
> ... parroting becomes critical reflexion at some threshold of complexity. Strong disagree. ... but I'm having a hard time seeing any way to prove that I'm right. I think it may be that my working definition of "reflection" differs from yours.
mdp2021 4y ago
The topic was Intelligence. If we are talking about dancing, or scuba dive, it does not matter if most people just walk, or do not scuba dive. In fact, what the type in generic population does is more than irrelevant to what specific population does. And there is no direct port from description to prescription. And by the way, explicit critical thinking is expected to be, as it was in some regions, taught in primary school, e.g. behaviourally when children are taught that their peers being just six-years-old, they must be wary in their interaction, using their own judgement if only for safety; e.g. scholarily when they are not just told that '1+1=2', but made see that two items make a couple (and only then made learn menmonics like tables). The «field of expertise» of these "«trained professionals»" is just daily mind operation in general. Of course, implicit critical thinking is just the operation of conceptual revision that would anyway go on unconsciously. And it does: people come up with "ideas". As Prof. Patrick Winston insisted, "«adjustment by feedback»" is virtual, implicit or explicit mental experiments. You do not need to jump out of that window to know something about the consequences. Any entity that repeats a prejudice - which is a clearly consequential and even studied effect of parroting - without "looking into it", internally discussing it, is unintelligent in the defined sense. If you have an idea that some phenomenon can be emergent from some mechanism, there will have to be foundational considerations to be proposed for it.
- visarga 4y ago
  The magic is this: more is different. [1] Parrots just repeat simple phrases, these language models recombine words to fit new contexts in ways that make sense. They memorise facts and common sense knowledge and use it to successfully solve hundreds of language based tasks. They are problem solvers, not parrots. This term was invented by an anti language model activist to discredit the big language model approach. Fortunately people still forge ahead with research and we get the likes of GPT-3, PaLM and DALL-E. [1] Sutton's "Bitter Lesson" - the importance of scale in AI models. Even AI researchers don't like to accept this fact. No wonder people are incredulous. http://www.incompleteideas.net/IncIdeas/BitterLesson.html http://www.incompleteideas.net/IncIdeas/BitterLesson.html Richard Sutton is one of the top AI researchers with 115,498 paper citations. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_S._Sutton https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_S._Sutton
  - mdp2021 4y ago
    > Sutton's "Bitter Lesson" The page from Sutton makes a statement that it is an error to implement imitations of human mind, especially hardcoding in models of it. The implementation of Intelligence is not an imitation of human mind, nor it needs hardcoding in simplified models. > problem solvers, not parrots They may solve language based tasks, yet Intelligence is a different matter. Parroting was used here in the sense of "repeating acritically inputs", not in the sense you used it. > invented by an anti language model activist And others, as you can see from this case, coincidentally decided for that term independently and unaware that others used it (as is normal). Probably driven to that having seen somebody call "intelligence" what is described as a system of consolidated associations - and noting that Intelligence is the opposite.

AnimalMuppet 4y ago

> ... parroting becomes critical reflexion at some threshold of complexity. Strong disagree. ... but I'm having a hard time seeing any way to prove that I'm right. I think it may be that my working definition of "reflection" differs from yours.

mdp2021 4y ago

The topic was Intelligence. If we are talking about dancing, or scuba dive, it does not matter if most people just walk, or do not scuba dive. In fact, what the type in generic population does is more than irrelevant to what specific population does. And there is no direct port from description to prescription. And by the way, explicit critical thinking is expected to be, as it was in some regions, taught in primary school, e.g. behaviourally when children are taught that their peers being just six-years-old, they must be wary in their interaction, using their own judgement if only for safety; e.g. scholarily when they are not just told that '1+1=2', but made see that two items make a couple (and only then made learn menmonics like tables). The «field of expertise» of these "«trained professionals»" is just daily mind operation in general. Of course, implicit critical thinking is just the operation of conceptual revision that would anyway go on unconsciously. And it does: people come up with "ideas". As Prof. Patrick Winston insisted, "«adjustment by feedback»" is virtual, implicit or explicit mental experiments. You do not need to jump out of that window to know something about the consequences. Any entity that repeats a prejudice - which is a clearly consequential and even studied effect of parroting - without "looking into it", internally discussing it, is unintelligent in the defined sense. If you have an idea that some phenomenon can be emergent from some mechanism, there will have to be foundational considerations to be proposed for it.

visarga 4y ago
The magic is this: more is different. [1] Parrots just repeat simple phrases, these language models recombine words to fit new contexts in ways that make sense. They memorise facts and common sense knowledge and use it to successfully solve hundreds of language based tasks. They are problem solvers, not parrots. This term was invented by an anti language model activist to discredit the big language model approach. Fortunately people still forge ahead with research and we get the likes of GPT-3, PaLM and DALL-E. [1] Sutton's "Bitter Lesson" - the importance of scale in AI models. Even AI researchers don't like to accept this fact. No wonder people are incredulous. http://www.incompleteideas.net/IncIdeas/BitterLesson.html http://www.incompleteideas.net/IncIdeas/BitterLesson.html Richard Sutton is one of the top AI researchers with 115,498 paper citations. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_S._Sutton https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_S._Sutton
- mdp2021 4y ago
  > Sutton's "Bitter Lesson" The page from Sutton makes a statement that it is an error to implement imitations of human mind, especially hardcoding in models of it. The implementation of Intelligence is not an imitation of human mind, nor it needs hardcoding in simplified models. > problem solvers, not parrots They may solve language based tasks, yet Intelligence is a different matter. Parroting was used here in the sense of "repeating acritically inputs", not in the sense you used it. > invented by an anti language model activist And others, as you can see from this case, coincidentally decided for that term independently and unaware that others used it (as is normal). Probably driven to that having seen somebody call "intelligence" what is described as a system of consolidated associations - and noting that Intelligence is the opposite.