3 ms·
> It does not form a representational state prior to speaking which is the reason it speaks. The whole thing is a representational state, and the fact that it'
by yunwal 4y ago
> It does not form a representational state prior to speaking which is the reason it speaks.
The whole thing is a representational state, and the fact that it's identical at the start of every conversation is a design choice, not inherent to the way the model learns.
> In other-words, it does not say, "I like ice-cream" because it likes ice-cream.
You also don't say "I like ice-cream" because you like ice cream. You say it because through years of evolution you've been taught to crave fat and sugar and other things in ice cream, which fuels your body, and helps you live and reproduce. The fact that this AI is optimizing for something else doesn't really prove anything.
I also don't think that we have anything more than a "statistically approximate model" of anything outside of our own thoughts. The theory of gravity exists because we've seen objects fall from heights a million times, we're told by others we speak to that they experience the same thing. From this we can say that with 99.9999...% (enough 9s to be indistinguishable from 100) probability, the theory of gravity is true.
- simple-thoughts 4y agoI would amend that there is valid reasoning other than empirical analysis, but also that chatgpt is capable of generating text demonstrating those types of reasoning.
- yunwal 4y agoI mean, ChatGPT is empirical analysis plus some rules tacked on afterword by openAI. With enough data and processing, empirical analysis becomes indistinguishable from other types of reasoning.
- simple-thoughts 4y agoA weird thing about LLM is that certain internal structures (layers, activation functions) are much more effective than others. No one knows why. There’s a lot of work likely being done by it’s internal structure that we don’t really understand, which would explain why it is able to do more than just empirical analysis.
- mjburgess 4y ago> You say it because through years of evolution This equivocates the sense of "because". When I say "I like ice-cream" I mean that I have an occurrent preference/desire for it. I am capable of desire, and the object of my desire here is "ice-cream". Why I'm capable of desire has a lot to do with evolution, etc. yes. But that isn't relevant to the meaning of the claim. > The theory of gravity exists because No, this is humean nonesense. We are in the world; the world exists; it directly causes us to form beliefs about it. Those beliefs we, in general, arrive at via abduction. Consider the fact that a child only needs to touch a fireplace once before concluding never to touch it again. The heat caused an immediate, unambigious, representational state which imparts law-like consistency on the world which governs the child's future behaviour. We do not live in a statistical inductive nightmare; AI does.
- yunwal 4y ago> Why I'm capable of desire has a lot to do with evolution, etc. yes. But that isn't relevant to the meaning of the claim. If you are going to claim that your expression of desire is fundamentally different from another thing's, you need a reason, not just "because I mean it". > Consider the fact that a child only needs to touch a fireplace once before concluding never to touch it again. You can justify not touching the fireplace on a risk/reward, probabilistic basis. The child receives little reward for attempting to touch the fireplace, and lots of punishment. That alone is enough to dissuade you, or cause you to be more cautious in the future. People who receive actual rewards routinely do painful/dangerous things.