5 ms·

This criticism, like many others, attacks the mechanics of how LLMs think, apparently dismissing the models for not doing so using the same process, faculties,

This criticism, like many others, attacks the mechanics of how LLMs think, apparently dismissing the models for not doing so using the same process, faculties, and background life experience as a human. It does not contain any compelling arguments to refute the notion that LLMs think. We may not have consumer level AGI just yet, but suggesting a LLM is just a dumb anything (stochastic parrot or otherwise) is a rather extraordinary claim to make about something that basically patterns the whole internet. We’ve been here before. Our sense of place in the universe was first upset by the heliocentric model (we’re not as special as we thought), then the theory of general relativity (not as correct as we thought), then quantum mechanics (not even living in a deterministic universe, really). With all these fantastic discoveries behind us, now seems like the right time to learn that we’re not as smart as we thought either.

thom 4y ago
The stochastic parrot claim seems to crash people’s brains because they assume this is all about words. The fact that these models very clearly learn not just patterns of words, but patterns of ideas, and ideas about ideas, seems a very profound result. Personally I do remain unimpressed by how the current models ‘think’ on top of this knowledge, but I’d have to work very hard to be as cynical as to imply this was all a scam, or somehow not progress (whatever you think of the destination).
- masswerk 4y ago
  Hum, as someone who grew up in the times of the linguistic turn, I'm somewhat missing the groundbreaking revolution here. The entire idea of "text" was based on this.
- AndrewDucker 4y ago
  "these models very clearly learn not just patterns of words, but patterns of ideas, and ideas about ideas" This is not at all clear to me.
  - smitty1e 4y ago
    The assertion seems to be that epistemology is boils down to data crunching. But is epistemology purely empirical? Color me skeptical. One feels that we're nailing the easy 3/4 of the question or so.
    - AndrewDucker 4y ago
      I think it's worse than that. We're doing a great job of generating text which looks reasonable X% of the time. Which doesn't actually mean we've solved X% of the question - because there is no way of building on top of what we have to close the gap.
      - brookst 4y ago
        Are you talking about people or LLMs?
  - ieee2 4y ago
    As an new AI image generators are not just replicating existing pictures but generating wonderful new ones, language models are not just replicating average of what they seen but are capable of generating novel ideas.
    - AndrewDucker 4y ago
      They're certainly capable of remixing things they've seen, and adding in randomness will add novelty. Whether that counts as "creativity" is something people can debate : - ) I think that the reason image ones have caught on better in some ways is because they don't need to be accurate. We're not asking them to understand anything, just produce images based on text prompts (which is amazing stuff all by itself).
      - stuckinhell 4y ago
        Remixing objects and designs consistently like "van gogh" or "super mario" really implies some kind of internal model or "understanding" of the world. Image generation didn't catch on because of lack of accuracy, but because of how GOOD the results are. It's made artwork immediately accessible to the masses without the huge learning curve. That's where these AI's are going to shine very very quickly.
- jjtheblunt 4y ago
  > The fact... Proof or at least citation somewhere?
dusted 4y ago
They do not think.. They're attacking the mechanics of what it does.
bambax 4y ago
We're certainly not as smart, or special, as we think, and I often wonder if other species like dolphins or whales -- or crows! -- see the universe as made especially for them. But comparing the current AI situation, and its parroting LLM models, to the Copernic revolution is so over the top that it's absurd. Sam Bankman, meet Sam Altman?
- textninja 4y ago
  Is it really so over the top, though? We have machines that have basically internalized the Internet and can easily pass a Turing test, and yet we still have people trivializing these marvels as mere “parrots”. I believe this is partly a defence mechanism (we humans are inherently hubristic), and if a stubborn attachment to humanity’s “specialness” is the cause, then that certainly mirrors the psychology of Copernicus’s detractors. In a way, though, the “parrot” moniker is apt. The (long aspirational) Turing Test was originally called the “imitation game”, and what’s better at imitation than a parrot? Apparently, it’s ChatGPT - I never did see a parrot write code.
  - bambax 4y ago
    There's a contradiction in pretending that "humans are not as smart as they think" and that "AI exists": it should be one or the other. In other words, if machines can convincingly imitate us, does it mean machines are intelligent, or that we're stupid?
    - stuckinhell 4y ago
      It's gets worse because human intelligence exists on a normal curve. So is the AI smarter than "most" humans, "some" humans, or "a few" humans ? At any level of that, you have a paradigm shift affecting millions to billions of people.
    - pokeypokes 4y ago
      I don't see a contradiction.. Humans can both be intelligent and overestimate that intelligence (by thinking it's special and unobtainable) at the same time.

thom 4y ago

The stochastic parrot claim seems to crash people’s brains because they assume this is all about words. The fact that these models very clearly learn not just patterns of words, but patterns of ideas, and ideas about ideas, seems a very profound result. Personally I do remain unimpressed by how the current models ‘think’ on top of this knowledge, but I’d have to work very hard to be as cynical as to imply this was all a scam, or somehow not progress (whatever you think of the destination).

masswerk 4y ago
Hum, as someone who grew up in the times of the linguistic turn, I'm somewhat missing the groundbreaking revolution here. The entire idea of "text" was based on this.
AndrewDucker 4y ago
"these models very clearly learn not just patterns of words, but patterns of ideas, and ideas about ideas" This is not at all clear to me.
- smitty1e 4y ago
  The assertion seems to be that epistemology is boils down to data crunching. But is epistemology purely empirical? Color me skeptical. One feels that we're nailing the easy 3/4 of the question or so.
  - AndrewDucker 4y ago
    I think it's worse than that. We're doing a great job of generating text which looks reasonable X% of the time. Which doesn't actually mean we've solved X% of the question - because there is no way of building on top of what we have to close the gap.
    - brookst 4y ago
      Are you talking about people or LLMs?
- ieee2 4y ago
  As an new AI image generators are not just replicating existing pictures but generating wonderful new ones, language models are not just replicating average of what they seen but are capable of generating novel ideas.
  - AndrewDucker 4y ago
    They're certainly capable of remixing things they've seen, and adding in randomness will add novelty. Whether that counts as "creativity" is something people can debate : - ) I think that the reason image ones have caught on better in some ways is because they don't need to be accurate. We're not asking them to understand anything, just produce images based on text prompts (which is amazing stuff all by itself).
    - stuckinhell 4y ago
      Remixing objects and designs consistently like "van gogh" or "super mario" really implies some kind of internal model or "understanding" of the world. Image generation didn't catch on because of lack of accuracy, but because of how GOOD the results are. It's made artwork immediately accessible to the masses without the huge learning curve. That's where these AI's are going to shine very very quickly.
jjtheblunt 4y ago
> The fact... Proof or at least citation somewhere?

dusted 4y ago

They do not think.. They're attacking the mechanics of what it does.

bambax 4y ago

We're certainly not as smart, or special, as we think, and I often wonder if other species like dolphins or whales -- or crows! -- see the universe as made especially for them. But comparing the current AI situation, and its parroting LLM models, to the Copernic revolution is so over the top that it's absurd. Sam Bankman, meet Sam Altman?

textninja 4y ago
Is it really so over the top, though? We have machines that have basically internalized the Internet and can easily pass a Turing test, and yet we still have people trivializing these marvels as mere “parrots”. I believe this is partly a defence mechanism (we humans are inherently hubristic), and if a stubborn attachment to humanity’s “specialness” is the cause, then that certainly mirrors the psychology of Copernicus’s detractors. In a way, though, the “parrot” moniker is apt. The (long aspirational) Turing Test was originally called the “imitation game”, and what’s better at imitation than a parrot? Apparently, it’s ChatGPT - I never did see a parrot write code.
- bambax 4y ago
  There's a contradiction in pretending that "humans are not as smart as they think" and that "AI exists": it should be one or the other. In other words, if machines can convincingly imitate us, does it mean machines are intelligent, or that we're stupid?
  - stuckinhell 4y ago
    It's gets worse because human intelligence exists on a normal curve. So is the AI smarter than "most" humans, "some" humans, or "a few" humans ? At any level of that, you have a paradigm shift affecting millions to billions of people.
  - pokeypokes 4y ago
    I don't see a contradiction.. Humans can both be intelligent and overestimate that intelligence (by thinking it's special and unobtainable) at the same time.