3 ms·

I think you're taking it way too literally. The author is proposing a model that [allegedly] does a good job of explaining why we see unexpected behavior, not

I think you're taking it way too literally. The author is proposing a model that [allegedly] does a good job of explaining why we see unexpected behavior, not a description of what they think is happening. I think charitable reading would require you to mentally insert a lot of qualifiers, e.g. "When we give the LLM a prompt, it [behaves like something that] simulates every possible entity consistent with the prompt." That's certainly how I read it, anyway. edit to add: this is similar to how people discussing evolutionary biology will often use "evolution wants to..." as shorthand for something like "evolution, which obviously cannot want things due to being a process and not an entity, nevertheless can be accurately modeled as an entity that wants to...". Someone will invariably come along in the comments and say, "Nonsense, how can evolution 'want' anything? You must have failed Bio 101!"

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
sdwr 4y ago
As with all these articles, the title and main premise are misguided and/or imaginary, but there are some worthwhile nuggets. The superposition of possible attitudes is a good one. Even if that's not the way LLMs "actually" work, it's descriptive of the possibility space from our perspective. And the dive into narrative theory + the stickiness of opposites is nice. Narratives have their own momentum in a "stone soup" kind of way - everyone who hears it participates and adds fuel to the fire. Even rejecting the narrative gives it validity in a price anchoring / overton window way.
donnowhy 4y ago
> The author is proposing a model that [allegedly] does a good job of explaining why we see unexpected behavior I agree, and go even further: models that explain behavior are all we have ever had. it's all only "models that explain this or that" all the way to the 'bottom'. To suppose we can really directly access the "the real objective truth of what's happening" is to ignore the way in which we connect with the "real objective truth"; the same as fish who ignore the ocean. to argue about what is really happening is to argue about which words to use to describe what is really happening without noticing the nature of languages/words and frameworks or 'systems of thought' which we are using to argue (and indeed, are arguing about) all this summed up by this quote from about about the pedagogy programing languages: "Sometimes the truest things can only be said in fiction"

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

sdwr 4y ago

As with all these articles, the title and main premise are misguided and/or imaginary, but there are some worthwhile nuggets. The superposition of possible attitudes is a good one. Even if that's not the way LLMs "actually" work, it's descriptive of the possibility space from our perspective. And the dive into narrative theory + the stickiness of opposites is nice. Narratives have their own momentum in a "stone soup" kind of way - everyone who hears it participates and adds fuel to the fire. Even rejecting the narrative gives it validity in a price anchoring / overton window way.

donnowhy 4y ago

> The author is proposing a model that [allegedly] does a good job of explaining why we see unexpected behavior I agree, and go even further: models that explain behavior are all we have ever had. it's all only "models that explain this or that" all the way to the 'bottom'. To suppose we can really directly access the "the real objective truth of what's happening" is to ignore the way in which we connect with the "real objective truth"; the same as fish who ignore the ocean. to argue about what is really happening is to argue about which words to use to describe what is really happening without noticing the nature of languages/words and frameworks or 'systems of thought' which we are using to argue (and indeed, are arguing about) all this summed up by this quote from about about the pedagogy programing languages: "Sometimes the truest things can only be said in fiction"