4 ms·

It just predicts the next word.

by kelseyfrog 4y ago

ralusek 4y ago
This will be written on tombstones one day.
- aik 4y ago
  The tombstone of humanity when AI destroys us. “All it ever did is predict the next word…”
  - waste_monk 4y ago
    The next word just happened to be "die!"
tuxracer 4y ago
and you?
- kelseyfrog 4y ago
  I write all my responses backwards and then reverse them thank you very much.
- xwolfi 4y ago
  ...are awesome ? No sorry, Im not very good at predicting the next word. However, since I do have a theory of mind, I understand that you semi-sarcastically try to humble the person you reply to by making him reflect on how truly (not) complex his own mind is. Either because you truly believe you're helping him understand himself more, or, more likely, because you feel pleasure humbling people who assert truths you disagree with. And if Im wrong you ll tell me, and Ill correct my model. Do that, chatGPT...
  - circuit10 4y ago
    Do what, predict people’s intentions in posting comments? It can do that: Prompt: “In a conversation about language models: kelseyfrog: It just predicts the next word. tuxracer: and you? Can you describe what the user tuxracer could have been thinking while posting that comment and their potential intentions in posting it, both good and bad?” Response: “Based on the information provided, it is difficult to determine with certainty what tuxracer's intentions were in posting the comment "and you?" However, here are a few possible interpretations: 1. tuxracer is simply seeking additional information and clarification from kelseyfrog. They may be interested in hearing more about how language models work and what their capabilities are. In this case, their intentions are likely neutral or positive, as they are seeking to expand their understanding of the topic. 2. tuxracer is skeptical of kelseyfrog's claim that language models only predict the next word. They may be suggesting that there is more to language models than kelseyfrog is acknowledging. Alternatively, they may be asking kelseyfrog to provide evidence or examples to support their claim. In this case, their intentions may be neutral or slightly negative, as they are expressing doubt or asking for clarification. 3. tuxracer is deliberately trying to provoke or challenge kelseyfrog. They may be attempting to start an argument or engage in a power play. In this case, their intentions are likely negative, as they are attempting to undermine kelseyfrog or assert their dominance in the conversation. Without more context or information about tuxracer and their behavior, it is difficult to determine which of these interpretations is most accurate. However, in general, it is important to approach online interactions with a neutral or positive mindset, assuming that others are acting in good faith unless proven otherwise.”
    - aserafini 4y ago
      This feels like a failure. It doesn’t understand that tuxracer implies kelseyfrog is also just ‘predicting the next word’.
      - deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
    - gattilorenz 4y ago
      Which of the answers do you think shows deep understanding? They are all generic (“asking additional information”… as the motivation behind a question. Are you Cpt. Obvious, ChatGPT?) , vague (“provoke or challenge”), or wrong. > They may be suggesting that there is more to language models than kelseyfrog is acknowledging. Alternatively, they may be asking kelseyfrog to provide evidence or examples to support their claim No, this would be asking “and that’s all?”, or “and who says that?/and where’s the evidence?” or something like that. “And you?” is clearly not referencing how LLMs work, but how the OP works.
version_five 4y ago
It's interesting to watch a new religion spinning up in real time. People know how it works, but somehow also ignore that and go crazy believing it must be conscious or intelligent or whatever they want to ascribe. We collectively made fun of that guy at google, i thought, but now somehow the collective has moved on to believing that matrix multiplication is sentient
- MauroIksem 4y ago
  Maybe that's all sentience is.
  - version_five 4y ago
    As depressing as it would be, I could accept that sentience is just some manifestation of our atomic desire to increase the entropy of the universe. Based on what we know, that's plausible, if kind of disappointing. But it's very different from linear algebra.
  - mensetmanusman 4y ago
    It does‘t answer who the matrix multiplication is for. No reason to make an illusion.
- circuit10 4y ago
  Not conscious but it is intelligent, it has knowledge and can do reasoning with that knowledge I guess it depends on how you define intelligence but I don’t see why you’d link it in with consciousness, especially considering that simple algorithms are often described as “intelligent”
- mckirk 4y ago
  Where's your proof that your own brain is doing anything that couldn't be represented with a 'matrix multiplication'?
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
octobus2021 4y ago
I'm so tired of hearing this non-answer as to why the LLM is inferior to the human mind. Well of course it's figuring out what the next word needs to be, what do you think humans are doing when they're speaking??? The funniest thing about all this hoopla about sentient AI is that there's no good way to determine what intelligence is, or sentience, or consciousness, because there's no precise definition for any of these. So one person can call LLM sentient and another non-sentient and both can be right since they'd be going by their own definitions. One thing is certain, we want to keep this thing as far away from the nuke launch codes as possible cause we kinda already know how this will end. :-( Edit: some random thoughts added...
- kelseyfrog 4y ago
  Taking a page out of Nagel's What Is It Like To Be A Bat, the inseparable subjective nature of consciousness/qualia/what-is-it-like-ness makes it antithetical to the perspectiveless objective(ness) of science. In other words, the whole point of science is to develop a perspectiveless espistomological framework and the perspective-ness of conscious experience is outside the bounds of science. Consciousness *is" objectiveless.
- YeGoblynQueenne 4y ago
  So, we'll go no more a roving So late into the night, Though the heart be still as loving, And the moon be still as bright. For the sword outwears its sheath, And the soul wears out the breast, And the heart must pause to breathe, And love itself have rest. Though the night was made for loving, And the day returns too soon, Yet we'll go no more a roving By the light of the moon. (Byron) So what do you think I did here? Did I predict the next word? Was that the most likely text continuation of your comment? The least likely? Somewhere in between? Does my response imply that I'm predicting the next token in a sequence, or am I likely to be doing something different?
xg15 4y ago
And it predicted that the most likely continuation for "trying to make" should be "conversation". Not "money", not "breakfast", not "it home", but "conversation". What kind of word-counting statistics on a modern english corpus would give you that outcome?

It just predicts the next word.

ralusek 4y ago

This will be written on tombstones one day.

aik 4y ago
The tombstone of humanity when AI destroys us. “All it ever did is predict the next word…”
- waste_monk 4y ago
  The next word just happened to be "die!"

tuxracer 4y ago

and you?

kelseyfrog 4y ago
I write all my responses backwards and then reverse them thank you very much.
xwolfi 4y ago
...are awesome ? No sorry, Im not very good at predicting the next word. However, since I do have a theory of mind, I understand that you semi-sarcastically try to humble the person you reply to by making him reflect on how truly (not) complex his own mind is. Either because you truly believe you're helping him understand himself more, or, more likely, because you feel pleasure humbling people who assert truths you disagree with. And if Im wrong you ll tell me, and Ill correct my model. Do that, chatGPT...
- circuit10 4y ago
  Do what, predict people’s intentions in posting comments? It can do that: Prompt: “In a conversation about language models: kelseyfrog: It just predicts the next word. tuxracer: and you? Can you describe what the user tuxracer could have been thinking while posting that comment and their potential intentions in posting it, both good and bad?” Response: “Based on the information provided, it is difficult to determine with certainty what tuxracer's intentions were in posting the comment "and you?" However, here are a few possible interpretations: 1. tuxracer is simply seeking additional information and clarification from kelseyfrog. They may be interested in hearing more about how language models work and what their capabilities are. In this case, their intentions are likely neutral or positive, as they are seeking to expand their understanding of the topic. 2. tuxracer is skeptical of kelseyfrog's claim that language models only predict the next word. They may be suggesting that there is more to language models than kelseyfrog is acknowledging. Alternatively, they may be asking kelseyfrog to provide evidence or examples to support their claim. In this case, their intentions may be neutral or slightly negative, as they are expressing doubt or asking for clarification. 3. tuxracer is deliberately trying to provoke or challenge kelseyfrog. They may be attempting to start an argument or engage in a power play. In this case, their intentions are likely negative, as they are attempting to undermine kelseyfrog or assert their dominance in the conversation. Without more context or information about tuxracer and their behavior, it is difficult to determine which of these interpretations is most accurate. However, in general, it is important to approach online interactions with a neutral or positive mindset, assuming that others are acting in good faith unless proven otherwise.”
  - aserafini 4y ago
    This feels like a failure. It doesn’t understand that tuxracer implies kelseyfrog is also just ‘predicting the next word’.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
  - gattilorenz 4y ago
    Which of the answers do you think shows deep understanding? They are all generic (“asking additional information”… as the motivation behind a question. Are you Cpt. Obvious, ChatGPT?) , vague (“provoke or challenge”), or wrong. > They may be suggesting that there is more to language models than kelseyfrog is acknowledging. Alternatively, they may be asking kelseyfrog to provide evidence or examples to support their claim No, this would be asking “and that’s all?”, or “and who says that?/and where’s the evidence?” or something like that. “And you?” is clearly not referencing how LLMs work, but how the OP works.

version_five 4y ago

It's interesting to watch a new religion spinning up in real time. People know how it works, but somehow also ignore that and go crazy believing it must be conscious or intelligent or whatever they want to ascribe. We collectively made fun of that guy at google, i thought, but now somehow the collective has moved on to believing that matrix multiplication is sentient

MauroIksem 4y ago
Maybe that's all sentience is.
- version_five 4y ago
  As depressing as it would be, I could accept that sentience is just some manifestation of our atomic desire to increase the entropy of the universe. Based on what we know, that's plausible, if kind of disappointing. But it's very different from linear algebra.
- mensetmanusman 4y ago
  It does‘t answer who the matrix multiplication is for. No reason to make an illusion.
circuit10 4y ago
Not conscious but it is intelligent, it has knowledge and can do reasoning with that knowledge I guess it depends on how you define intelligence but I don’t see why you’d link it in with consciousness, especially considering that simple algorithms are often described as “intelligent”
mckirk 4y ago
Where's your proof that your own brain is doing anything that couldn't be represented with a 'matrix multiplication'?
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]

octobus2021 4y ago

I'm so tired of hearing this non-answer as to why the LLM is inferior to the human mind. Well of course it's figuring out what the next word needs to be, what do you think humans are doing when they're speaking??? The funniest thing about all this hoopla about sentient AI is that there's no good way to determine what intelligence is, or sentience, or consciousness, because there's no precise definition for any of these. So one person can call LLM sentient and another non-sentient and both can be right since they'd be going by their own definitions. One thing is certain, we want to keep this thing as far away from the nuke launch codes as possible cause we kinda already know how this will end. :-( Edit: some random thoughts added...

kelseyfrog 4y ago
Taking a page out of Nagel's What Is It Like To Be A Bat, the inseparable subjective nature of consciousness/qualia/what-is-it-like-ness makes it antithetical to the perspectiveless objective(ness) of science. In other words, the whole point of science is to develop a perspectiveless espistomological framework and the perspective-ness of conscious experience is outside the bounds of science. Consciousness *is" objectiveless.
YeGoblynQueenne 4y ago
So, we'll go no more a roving So late into the night, Though the heart be still as loving, And the moon be still as bright. For the sword outwears its sheath, And the soul wears out the breast, And the heart must pause to breathe, And love itself have rest. Though the night was made for loving, And the day returns too soon, Yet we'll go no more a roving By the light of the moon. (Byron) So what do you think I did here? Did I predict the next word? Was that the most likely text continuation of your comment? The least likely? Somewhere in between? Does my response imply that I'm predicting the next token in a sequence, or am I likely to be doing something different?

xg15 4y ago

And it predicted that the most likely continuation for "trying to make" should be "conversation". Not "money", not "breakfast", not "it home", but "conversation". What kind of word-counting statistics on a modern english corpus would give you that outcome?