3 ms·
“This is what we, humans, do too when we talk.” Citation needed. I mean, it’s possible right? That we’re just randomly sampling sentences. Maybe that’s all we
by randomsearch 4y ago
“This is what we, humans, do too when we talk.”
Citation needed.
I mean, it’s possible right? That we’re just randomly sampling sentences. Maybe that’s all we do. But it’s a hell of a strong claim that necessitates strong evidence.
- kgwgk 4y agoYou mean you have not read trillions of pages of text to "learn" how words go together?
- thaumasiotes 4y ago> I mean, it’s possible right? That we’re just randomly sampling sentences. Actually, no, it isn't possible. There's an example sidethread that immediately disproves this theory: > When you ask a human, "what did you eat for lunch?", we make a series of choices and recall bits of information to answer that. ( https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31721870 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31721870 ) If you observe someone having lunch (or skipping it), and later ask them what they had for lunch, you will usually get an answer that reflects what they had for lunch. This is not a guarantee -- they may make something up. But almost always they'll tell you what they had for lunch. In order to be able to do that, they need capacities that a language model doesn't have.
- Blahah 4y agoDid you read the original transcript? LaMDA reports (imagined) experiences in a way that seems perfectly compatible with human rhetoric.
- renewiltord 4y agoIt fails the usual memory tests. Zach W proposes asking it first about what it liked on its trip to Australia and soon after, why it has always avoided visiting Australia or some such thing. It provides plausible answers to both - which is problematic. Except that there exist people who behave somewhat oddly similarly.
- Blahah 4y agoRight, humans also lie and can appear to be arbitrarily inconsistent or forgetful.
- thaumasiotes 4y agoLying is not a counter to my point. Lying is done intentionally; accurately reporting what you had for lunch is not possible if your sentences are generated probabilistically, and neither is lying about it. What if you accidentally told the truth?
- burrows 4y agoYes, of course, ‘intentionality’, that clears everything up.
- kgwgk 4y agoArtificial Stupidity (or Idiocy - if we want to keep the acronym)
- int_19h 4y agoAmnesia?
- crocowhile 4y agoAI do not simply fish contents from an existing database. Instead, they use a repertoire to extract rules and create new instances, exactly as we do when we learn to speak. DALL-E can create an image of something even if it was not in its training set and a LamDA can create a sentence and even a concept that was not in its reading repertoire.