4 ms·

> And does what an LLM does differ from what humans might do? I'll bite. I've been quite convinced by the Popperian model of "conjecture and refutation" as as

> And does what an LLM does differ from what humans might do? I'll bite. I've been quite convinced by the Popperian model of "conjecture and refutation" as as good model for explaining not just scientific inquiry, but human thought processes in general. David Deutsch's "The Beginning of Infinity" is a very lengthy exposition of this idea. When I am writing, I have an idea in my mind that I would like to communicate. I type it out, and if the words on the page don't convey what I intended, I edit them. I delete a sentence or change a word, until I believe I have a sequence of words which will convey my intended meaning to my expected audience. The words, as they come, are a kind of "conjecture" about what will best convey my intention. I can "refute" or "criticise" (as Deutsch puts it) the conjecture using my own reasoning, even before testing the words on another person. As far as I understand LLMs (which admittedly not far), there is no such process going on. There is no intention which it is attempting to communicate via words. There is no creative conjecture about how to express the intention, and no criticism of the result.

maxdoop 4y ago
I have read Deutsch’s book as well — awesome read. The problem I have with claims like “there is no such process going on”, is we … don’t know. And the model of conjecture is a theory, also hard to prove — and thus my main (admittedly petty) point is that confidence about similarity or dissimilarity are both unfounded. It’s like we are comparing the insides of two black boxes and trying to make absolute claims on them.
- crabmusket 4y ago
  I don't disagree, I guess I just have a higher level of confidence in what we do know about both the brain and LLMs. Based on that, and on comparing the output, it just seems clear to me these things are different in kind. I guess that's just me displaying classic LLM self-confidence ;)

maxdoop 4y ago

I have read Deutsch’s book as well — awesome read. The problem I have with claims like “there is no such process going on”, is we … don’t know. And the model of conjecture is a theory, also hard to prove — and thus my main (admittedly petty) point is that confidence about similarity or dissimilarity are both unfounded. It’s like we are comparing the insides of two black boxes and trying to make absolute claims on them.

crabmusket 4y ago
I don't disagree, I guess I just have a higher level of confidence in what we do know about both the brain and LLMs. Based on that, and on comparing the output, it just seems clear to me these things are different in kind. I guess that's just me displaying classic LLM self-confidence ;)