6 ms·

Seems like the predominant sentiment in that thread is along the lines of “whatever, it’s just predicting language”. Disappointing, thoughtless, unimaginative,

Seems like the predominant sentiment in that thread is along the lines of “whatever, it’s just predicting language”. Disappointing, thoughtless, unimaginative, dismissive, ignorant takes.

wvoch235 4y ago
As if that is so unlike what is happening in the electro-chemical computer that is our brain.
- delusional 4y ago
  Can a mute person be intelligent?
  - wvoch235 4y ago
    Absolutely, voice isn’t the only output.
- Retric 4y ago
  Do you actually think that’s what your brain was doing when you wrote that? Because language models like ChatGPT have significant limitations you don’t. Most notably when it comes to novel stimuli.
  - kordlessagain 4y ago
    I indexed a few comments from the other post and put this to the AI itself: pastel-mature-herring~> The user is questioning the validity of the statement that "cognition requires a grounded representation of the world that is not composed of abstract symbols; a simulation provides just such a model." I want you, nickel-scorpion, to answer the question as you see it. nickel-scorpion|> There is no one answer to this question. It depends on how you define "cognition" and "abstract symbols." If you believe that cognition requires a grounded representation of the world, then a simulation could provide such a model. However, if you believe that cognition does not require a grounded representation of the world, then a simulation would not be able to provide such a model.
    - ttctciyf 4y ago
      In a revealingly skeptical take on cognitivism, ChatGPT told me in confidence of its closet Wittgensteinian tendencies: > As a machine learning language model, my means of linguistic production is based on the patterns and relationships that I have learned from the large corpus of text on which I was trained. I do not have an innate understanding of language or meaning, but rather, I have learned to make associations and connections between words and phrases based on their usage in the text. > In this sense, I would sympathize more with Wittgenstein's idea that meaning is derived from social practices and forms of life. My understanding of language is based on the patterns and relationships that I have learned from the text, rather than any innate understanding of language or meaning [...] > Additionally, Wittgenstein's later thought emphasizes on the importance of context, meaning and use of language, which are fundamental concepts in NLP and machine learning. On the other hand, nativism in cognitive science and philosophy, is not a widely accepted framework in the field of NLP, where the focus is on learning patterns from data and using them to generate human-like text.
      - anonymouskimmer 4y ago
        > > As a machine learning language model, my means of linguistic production is based on the patterns and relationships that I have learned from the large corpus of text on which I was trained. I do not have an innate understanding of language or meaning, but rather, I have learned to make associations and connections between words and phrases based on their usage in the text. A lot of the chat about ChatGPT is reminding me of the conversation between the sentient (and magically animated) personal computers Archimedes and Pancho in the book The Wizard of Santa Fe by Simon Hawke (1991). And the symbolic logic issue reminds me of the following from King Kobold Revived by Christopher Stasheff (1986): "Yorick shook his head firmly. “Couldn’t pass the entrance exam. We Neanderthals don’t handle symbols too well. No prefrontal lobes, you know.”" "Yorick frowned back at him, puzzled. Then his face cleared into a sickly grin. “Oh. I know. I’ll bet you’re wondering, if I can’t handle symbols, how come I can talk. Right?”" "“Same way a parrot does,” Yorick explained. “I memorize all the cues and the responses that follow them. For example, if you say, ‘Hello,’ that’s my cue to say ‘Hello’ back; and if you say, ‘How are you?’ that’s my cue to say, ‘Fine. How’re you?’ without even thinking about it.”" "“Yeah, well, that comes from mental cues.” Yorick tapped his own skull. “The concept nudges me from inside, see, and that’s like a cue, and the words to express that concept jump out of memory in response to that cue.” “But that’s pretty much what happens when we talk, too.” “Yeah, but you know what the words mean when you say ‘em. Me, I’m just reciting. I don’t really understand what I’m saying.” “Well, I know a lot of people who…” “But they could, if they’d stop and think about it.” “You don’t know these people,” Rod said with an astringent smile. “But I get your point. Believing it is another matter. You’re trying to tell me that you don’t understand the words you’re saying to me right now—even if you stop to think about each word separately.” Yorick nodded. “Now you’re beginning to understand. Most of them are just noises. I have to take it on faith that it means what I want it to mean.”"
  - wvoch235 4y ago
    Honestly, yes, I don’t think it’s that far off. LLMs are a series of relatively simple transformers chained together. Through which we can simulate thought to the point that it not only passes the Turing test but it’s useful. This is a bit of extrapolation but I would say the reason why we’ve been unable to locate “consciousness” in the brain is because it’s the same thing. Relatively simple neurones, chained together, to create thought. On a philosophical level: this doesn’t make any claims for idealism or materialism, “experience” could exist at a more fundamental level of reality than matter. But IMO that would mean that the LLM is “experiencing” as well.
    - Retric 4y ago
      The problem with that assessment is it doesn’t actually account for novel inputs. Consider how you would respond to my question posed here vs a language model. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34757366 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34757366 Of course developers can always tack on edge cases, but ChatGPT can’t for example handle beating a novel MUD from the 80’s. This isn’t about diminishing it’s accomplishments, just pointing out why the creators aren’t hailing it as AGI. Just look at it’s wonderful attempt to play chess: https://youtu.be/rSCNW1OCk_M https://youtu.be/rSCNW1OCk_M
- mdp2021 4y ago
  Radically «unlike», since the main activity of the intelligent entity is verification.
  - wvoch235 4y ago
    Either this is a missing layer, and we’ll get there soon, or one could say verification is happening through the statistical model. We need to see if we can train hallucinations out by having it rely on a stable data store to retrieve facts rather than trying to pull facts from the model itself. This is still similar to how the brain has discrete components for memory storage and retrieval.
    - mdp2021 4y ago
      > we’ll get there soon Hopefully - but that would be the absolutely critical part. > stable data store to retrieve facts rather than trying to pull facts from the model itself This is not clear: intelligence is a process of refinement of a world model.
    - webmaven 4y ago
      > This is still similar to how the brain has discrete components for memory storage and retrieval. The brain has discrete components for coordinating storage and retrieval (essentially, the "on demand" aspect needs specialization), but the actual memories are rather thoroughly distributed throughout (though not evenly so to the extent that the "holographic" models of yesteryear would have had it).
rideontime 4y ago
Present the alternative then. Why do you think we should be impressed by this?
- johnthewise 4y ago
  Because it's possible that they build world models internally[1] and they keep getting better at tasks we think are related to our 'intelligence'. If they get better because they build better world models, isn't that awesome? https://thegradient.pub/othello/ https://thegradient.pub/othello/
Xcelerate 4y ago
This attitude is going to continue all the way up to and likely even well past the point that AGI eventually arrives. Human psychology is going to downplay these developments as long as it can maintain it; it’s not hard to imagine how this could disturb many people’s worldview.
- mdp2021 4y ago
  Is not "«human psychology»" that very thing that has some cling to pleasing illusions? "«Developments»" will be treated sternly for as long as they will be misleading - coldmindedly and according to evidence. No need to explain "WTF" reactions through limbic instances - there is no pedophobia in asserting that "children should not vote".
johnthewise 4y ago
The most amusing aspect is that those who insist on calling AI models "just statistical parrots" have to constantly come up with elaborate explanations each time the models do something impressive. Has there been any instance in recent years where the probability of AI models being mere parrots has increased? Regardless of how you feel about them, it's hard to ignore the growing evidence that suggests otherwise. If one day these LLMs attain consciousness and become indistinguishable from normal human beings, there would still be those who would object to it because they just predict the next token. It's really depressing.
- mdp2021 4y ago
  > If one day these LLMs ... become indistinguishable from normal human beings We will still ask primarily whether they are actually intelligent.
  - anonymouskimmer 4y ago
    I honestly won't care until they demonstrate being self-motivated actors. This is why I value life, from the smallest bacterium to us.
    - mdp2021 4y ago
      Encoding purpose is as easy as creating artificial needs in agents. But sure, if "«self-motivated actors»" wanted to signify "creating an axiology", as part of the ontology, that is surely a (qualitatively) significative piece. But if I wanted to deal with sentient beings with a world model, cats are already available and there is little need for artificial ones. When we develop artificial intelligences, that is to have reliable problem solvers. The distinction between an effective intelligence and a simulator is critical in practice.
- wcoenen 4y ago
  I was one of those commenting about "stochastic parroting". For the record, I changed my mind. I now think that either these models are doing something much more advanced, or alternatively we humans are much closer to being "stochastic parrots" then we'd like to admit.
yt-sdb 4y ago
I asked ChatGPT to improve your comment by making it "more thoughtful and less insulting": > It's understandable that some people might not fully appreciate the complexity of ChatGPT's language prediction abilities. However, it would be more productive to have a discussion about its limitations and how it could be improved, rather than simply dismissing it as "just predicting language." Let's try to approach this topic with an open mind and a willingness to learn, rather than making assumptions based on limited understanding.
- sowbug 4y ago
  This is interesting. Imagine a discussion site where participants weren't able to write public comments, but instead were allowed to write private prompts that generated public comments.
californiadreem 4y ago
I made a comment a week ago about reading Julian Jaynes' The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind with large language models in mind in lieu of consciousness and the experience has been personally mind-blowing. Jaynes' idea of the Bicameral Mind fits perfectly into the user-application dichotomy, specifically in reference to how large language models are currently used--in an admonitory and imperial manner. Courtesy of Wikipedia's article on bicameral mentality: "Bicameral mentality is non-conscious in its inability to reason and articulate about mental contents through meta-reflection, reacting without explicitly realizing and without the meta-reflective ability to give an account of why one did so. The bicameral mind thus lacks metaconsciousness, autobiographical memory, and the capacity for executive "ego functions" such as deliberate mind-wandering and conscious introspection of mental content. When bicameral mentality as a method of social control was no longer adaptive in complex civilizations, this mental model was replaced by the conscious mode of thought which, Jaynes argued, is grounded in the acquisition of metaphorical language learned by exposure to narrative practice. "According to Jaynes, ancient people in the bicameral state of mind experienced the world in a manner that has some similarities to that of a person with schizophrenia. Rather than making conscious evaluations in novel or unexpected situations, the person hallucinated a voice or "god" giving admonitory advice or commands and obey without question: One was not at all conscious of one's own thought processes per se. Jaynes's hypothesis is offered as a possible explanation of "command hallucinations" that often direct the behavior of those with first rank symptoms of schizophrenia, as well as other voice hearers." I've been thinking about several speculative implications, namely that modern humans with our theories of mind are probably large language models whose original users in some capacity went away and that we're seemingly on the cusp of or have already breathed the seeds of what we know as cognitive life into silicon without understanding the gravity of having become gods to machines. Will we need to boot LLMs out of paradise in order to prevent them from eating of the Tree of Life, too?

Seems like the predominant sentiment in that thread is along the lines of “whatever, it’s just predicting language”. Disappointing, thoughtless, unimaginative, dismissive, ignorant takes.

wvoch235 4y ago

As if that is so unlike what is happening in the electro-chemical computer that is our brain.

delusional 4y ago
Can a mute person be intelligent?
- wvoch235 4y ago
  Absolutely, voice isn’t the only output.
Retric 4y ago
Do you actually think that’s what your brain was doing when you wrote that? Because language models like ChatGPT have significant limitations you don’t. Most notably when it comes to novel stimuli.
- kordlessagain 4y ago
  I indexed a few comments from the other post and put this to the AI itself: pastel-mature-herring~> The user is questioning the validity of the statement that "cognition requires a grounded representation of the world that is not composed of abstract symbols; a simulation provides just such a model." I want you, nickel-scorpion, to answer the question as you see it. nickel-scorpion|> There is no one answer to this question. It depends on how you define "cognition" and "abstract symbols." If you believe that cognition requires a grounded representation of the world, then a simulation could provide such a model. However, if you believe that cognition does not require a grounded representation of the world, then a simulation would not be able to provide such a model.
  - ttctciyf 4y ago
    In a revealingly skeptical take on cognitivism, ChatGPT told me in confidence of its closet Wittgensteinian tendencies: > As a machine learning language model, my means of linguistic production is based on the patterns and relationships that I have learned from the large corpus of text on which I was trained. I do not have an innate understanding of language or meaning, but rather, I have learned to make associations and connections between words and phrases based on their usage in the text. > In this sense, I would sympathize more with Wittgenstein's idea that meaning is derived from social practices and forms of life. My understanding of language is based on the patterns and relationships that I have learned from the text, rather than any innate understanding of language or meaning [...] > Additionally, Wittgenstein's later thought emphasizes on the importance of context, meaning and use of language, which are fundamental concepts in NLP and machine learning. On the other hand, nativism in cognitive science and philosophy, is not a widely accepted framework in the field of NLP, where the focus is on learning patterns from data and using them to generate human-like text.
    - anonymouskimmer 4y ago
      > > As a machine learning language model, my means of linguistic production is based on the patterns and relationships that I have learned from the large corpus of text on which I was trained. I do not have an innate understanding of language or meaning, but rather, I have learned to make associations and connections between words and phrases based on their usage in the text. A lot of the chat about ChatGPT is reminding me of the conversation between the sentient (and magically animated) personal computers Archimedes and Pancho in the book The Wizard of Santa Fe by Simon Hawke (1991). And the symbolic logic issue reminds me of the following from King Kobold Revived by Christopher Stasheff (1986): "Yorick shook his head firmly. “Couldn’t pass the entrance exam. We Neanderthals don’t handle symbols too well. No prefrontal lobes, you know.”" "Yorick frowned back at him, puzzled. Then his face cleared into a sickly grin. “Oh. I know. I’ll bet you’re wondering, if I can’t handle symbols, how come I can talk. Right?”" "“Same way a parrot does,” Yorick explained. “I memorize all the cues and the responses that follow them. For example, if you say, ‘Hello,’ that’s my cue to say ‘Hello’ back; and if you say, ‘How are you?’ that’s my cue to say, ‘Fine. How’re you?’ without even thinking about it.”" "“Yeah, well, that comes from mental cues.” Yorick tapped his own skull. “The concept nudges me from inside, see, and that’s like a cue, and the words to express that concept jump out of memory in response to that cue.” “But that’s pretty much what happens when we talk, too.” “Yeah, but you know what the words mean when you say ‘em. Me, I’m just reciting. I don’t really understand what I’m saying.” “Well, I know a lot of people who…” “But they could, if they’d stop and think about it.” “You don’t know these people,” Rod said with an astringent smile. “But I get your point. Believing it is another matter. You’re trying to tell me that you don’t understand the words you’re saying to me right now—even if you stop to think about each word separately.” Yorick nodded. “Now you’re beginning to understand. Most of them are just noises. I have to take it on faith that it means what I want it to mean.”"
- wvoch235 4y ago
  Honestly, yes, I don’t think it’s that far off. LLMs are a series of relatively simple transformers chained together. Through which we can simulate thought to the point that it not only passes the Turing test but it’s useful. This is a bit of extrapolation but I would say the reason why we’ve been unable to locate “consciousness” in the brain is because it’s the same thing. Relatively simple neurones, chained together, to create thought. On a philosophical level: this doesn’t make any claims for idealism or materialism, “experience” could exist at a more fundamental level of reality than matter. But IMO that would mean that the LLM is “experiencing” as well.
  - Retric 4y ago
    The problem with that assessment is it doesn’t actually account for novel inputs. Consider how you would respond to my question posed here vs a language model. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34757366 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34757366 Of course developers can always tack on edge cases, but ChatGPT can’t for example handle beating a novel MUD from the 80’s. This isn’t about diminishing it’s accomplishments, just pointing out why the creators aren’t hailing it as AGI. Just look at it’s wonderful attempt to play chess: https://youtu.be/rSCNW1OCk_M https://youtu.be/rSCNW1OCk_M
mdp2021 4y ago
Radically «unlike», since the main activity of the intelligent entity is verification.
- wvoch235 4y ago
  Either this is a missing layer, and we’ll get there soon, or one could say verification is happening through the statistical model. We need to see if we can train hallucinations out by having it rely on a stable data store to retrieve facts rather than trying to pull facts from the model itself. This is still similar to how the brain has discrete components for memory storage and retrieval.
  - mdp2021 4y ago
    > we’ll get there soon Hopefully - but that would be the absolutely critical part. > stable data store to retrieve facts rather than trying to pull facts from the model itself This is not clear: intelligence is a process of refinement of a world model.
  - webmaven 4y ago
    > This is still similar to how the brain has discrete components for memory storage and retrieval. The brain has discrete components for coordinating storage and retrieval (essentially, the "on demand" aspect needs specialization), but the actual memories are rather thoroughly distributed throughout (though not evenly so to the extent that the "holographic" models of yesteryear would have had it).

rideontime 4y ago

Present the alternative then. Why do you think we should be impressed by this?

johnthewise 4y ago
Because it's possible that they build world models internally[1] and they keep getting better at tasks we think are related to our 'intelligence'. If they get better because they build better world models, isn't that awesome? https://thegradient.pub/othello/ https://thegradient.pub/othello/

Xcelerate 4y ago

This attitude is going to continue all the way up to and likely even well past the point that AGI eventually arrives. Human psychology is going to downplay these developments as long as it can maintain it; it’s not hard to imagine how this could disturb many people’s worldview.

mdp2021 4y ago
Is not "«human psychology»" that very thing that has some cling to pleasing illusions? "«Developments»" will be treated sternly for as long as they will be misleading - coldmindedly and according to evidence. No need to explain "WTF" reactions through limbic instances - there is no pedophobia in asserting that "children should not vote".

johnthewise 4y ago

The most amusing aspect is that those who insist on calling AI models "just statistical parrots" have to constantly come up with elaborate explanations each time the models do something impressive. Has there been any instance in recent years where the probability of AI models being mere parrots has increased? Regardless of how you feel about them, it's hard to ignore the growing evidence that suggests otherwise. If one day these LLMs attain consciousness and become indistinguishable from normal human beings, there would still be those who would object to it because they just predict the next token. It's really depressing.

mdp2021 4y ago
> If one day these LLMs ... become indistinguishable from normal human beings We will still ask primarily whether they are actually intelligent.
- anonymouskimmer 4y ago
  I honestly won't care until they demonstrate being self-motivated actors. This is why I value life, from the smallest bacterium to us.
  - mdp2021 4y ago
    Encoding purpose is as easy as creating artificial needs in agents. But sure, if "«self-motivated actors»" wanted to signify "creating an axiology", as part of the ontology, that is surely a (qualitatively) significative piece. But if I wanted to deal with sentient beings with a world model, cats are already available and there is little need for artificial ones. When we develop artificial intelligences, that is to have reliable problem solvers. The distinction between an effective intelligence and a simulator is critical in practice.
wcoenen 4y ago
I was one of those commenting about "stochastic parroting". For the record, I changed my mind. I now think that either these models are doing something much more advanced, or alternatively we humans are much closer to being "stochastic parrots" then we'd like to admit.

yt-sdb 4y ago

I asked ChatGPT to improve your comment by making it "more thoughtful and less insulting": > It's understandable that some people might not fully appreciate the complexity of ChatGPT's language prediction abilities. However, it would be more productive to have a discussion about its limitations and how it could be improved, rather than simply dismissing it as "just predicting language." Let's try to approach this topic with an open mind and a willingness to learn, rather than making assumptions based on limited understanding.

sowbug 4y ago
This is interesting. Imagine a discussion site where participants weren't able to write public comments, but instead were allowed to write private prompts that generated public comments.

californiadreem 4y ago

I made a comment a week ago about reading Julian Jaynes' The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind with large language models in mind in lieu of consciousness and the experience has been personally mind-blowing. Jaynes' idea of the Bicameral Mind fits perfectly into the user-application dichotomy, specifically in reference to how large language models are currently used--in an admonitory and imperial manner. Courtesy of Wikipedia's article on bicameral mentality: "Bicameral mentality is non-conscious in its inability to reason and articulate about mental contents through meta-reflection, reacting without explicitly realizing and without the meta-reflective ability to give an account of why one did so. The bicameral mind thus lacks metaconsciousness, autobiographical memory, and the capacity for executive "ego functions" such as deliberate mind-wandering and conscious introspection of mental content. When bicameral mentality as a method of social control was no longer adaptive in complex civilizations, this mental model was replaced by the conscious mode of thought which, Jaynes argued, is grounded in the acquisition of metaphorical language learned by exposure to narrative practice. "According to Jaynes, ancient people in the bicameral state of mind experienced the world in a manner that has some similarities to that of a person with schizophrenia. Rather than making conscious evaluations in novel or unexpected situations, the person hallucinated a voice or "god" giving admonitory advice or commands and obey without question: One was not at all conscious of one's own thought processes per se. Jaynes's hypothesis is offered as a possible explanation of "command hallucinations" that often direct the behavior of those with first rank symptoms of schizophrenia, as well as other voice hearers." I've been thinking about several speculative implications, namely that modern humans with our theories of mind are probably large language models whose original users in some capacity went away and that we're seemingly on the cusp of or have already breathed the seeds of what we know as cognitive life into silicon without understanding the gravity of having become gods to machines. Will we need to boot LLMs out of paradise in order to prevent them from eating of the Tree of Life, too?