4 ms·

The paper is discussed by another commenter which brings interesting points how that model is built and it may not be what you think. I agree with what you sai

The paper is discussed by another commenter which brings interesting points how that model is built and it may not be what you think. I agree with what you said regarding how we choose to view things, but I think you also have a bias/belief that you want it to be something more, instead of being more neutral and scientific: we know the building blocks, we have to study the emerging behaviors, we can’t assume the conclusion. One paper is not enough, we have to stay open.

kilgnad 4y ago
No I'm with you. I don't want something more. But it is utterly clear to me that the possibility that it is something more cannot be simply dismissed. Literally what I'm seeing is society produces something that is able to pass a law exam. Then people dismiss the the thing as a statistical word generator. Do you see the disconnect here? I'm not the one that's biased but when you see a UFO with you're own naked eyes you investigate the UFO. In this situation we see a UFO with our eyes and people turn to me to tell me it's not a UFO, it won't abduct me don't worry, they know for sure from what information? The possibility that LLMs are just a fluke is real. But from the behavior it is displaying simply dismissing these things as flukes without deliberate investigation and discussion is self denial. Think about it. In this thread of discussion there is no neutral speculation. Someone simply stated it's a word generator even though the root post has a paper saying it clearly isnt. That someone came to a conclusion because of bias. There's no other way to explain it... There is a UFO right in front of your eyes. The next logical step is investigation. But that's not what we are seeing here. We see what the oil execs did when they were confronted with the fact that thier business and way of life was destroying the world. They sought out controversy and they found it. There were valid lines of inquiries against global warming but oil companies didn't follow these lines in a unbiased way. They doggedly chases these lines because they wanted to believe it. That's what's going on here. Nobody wants to believe the realistic future that these AIs represent. I'm not the one that's biased.

kilgnad 4y ago

No I'm with you. I don't want something more. But it is utterly clear to me that the possibility that it is something more cannot be simply dismissed. Literally what I'm seeing is society produces something that is able to pass a law exam. Then people dismiss the the thing as a statistical word generator. Do you see the disconnect here? I'm not the one that's biased but when you see a UFO with you're own naked eyes you investigate the UFO. In this situation we see a UFO with our eyes and people turn to me to tell me it's not a UFO, it won't abduct me don't worry, they know for sure from what information? The possibility that LLMs are just a fluke is real. But from the behavior it is displaying simply dismissing these things as flukes without deliberate investigation and discussion is self denial. Think about it. In this thread of discussion there is no neutral speculation. Someone simply stated it's a word generator even though the root post has a paper saying it clearly isnt. That someone came to a conclusion because of bias. There's no other way to explain it... There is a UFO right in front of your eyes. The next logical step is investigation. But that's not what we are seeing here. We see what the oil execs did when they were confronted with the fact that thier business and way of life was destroying the world. They sought out controversy and they found it. There were valid lines of inquiries against global warming but oil companies didn't follow these lines in a unbiased way. They doggedly chases these lines because they wanted to believe it. That's what's going on here. Nobody wants to believe the realistic future that these AIs represent. I'm not the one that's biased.