5 ms·

I'm prone to agree. Your memory would still require being parsed by the language model, and for it to have a sufficient window as to allow this. Alternately, th

by knome 4y ago

I'm prone to agree. Your memory would still require being parsed by the language model, and for it to have a sufficient window as to allow this. Alternately, the human mind keeps, what, 7 items 'present' at a time? When the 32k variant comes out, the ability to use a side-along memory module on a running self-summarizing conversation will be even easier than it is now. I expect a more human-like memory will emerge eventually, once we can figure out a good way to project and retrieve via arbitrary weight values into it. I'd like the "stochastic parrot" crew to explain how interactions like this somehow don't involve the extraction of and manipulation of abstract meaning. H: translate the following sentence to instead use olympic curling related metaphors ( do not explicitly mention curling, and do not use similes in forming the translation ): man:"I've been spinning my tires all day without getting anywhere" woman:"running out of gas?" man:"nah, I'm gassed up, geared up, oiled and revving. I just can't seem to get in the right lane, you know?" woman:"anything knocking?" man:"nah, I'm tuned just fine. I can't seem to get my GPS to connect, you know?" woman:"take a few laps without a destination, see if you can figure out the lay of the land" man:"you know, that might help. thanks barbara" R: man: "I've been sweeping the ice all day without hitting the target." . woman: "Losing momentum?" . man: "Nah, I've got the energy, the technique, and the focus. I just can't seem to find the right path, you know?" . woman: "Anything coming in your way?" . man: "Nah, I'm on point with my aim. I just can't seem to get my strategy to align, you know?" . woman: "Maybe glide a few times without aiming specifically, see if you can figure out the ice conditions." . man: "You know, that might help. Thanks, Barbara." It seems obvious to me that it is understanding the metaphors into underlying meanings to be able to translate them like this. I think half the pushback is just ego driven nonsense, similar to the sorts of people that make similar claims on the capabilities of animals. It's all just an argument that "boats can't swim".

_yb2s 4y ago
I think this is a good example of deep conceptual understanding, I suspect if you posed this same problem to adult humans (e.g. me) they wouldn't be able to do as well.
- michaelmrose 4y ago
  An actual intelligence would have a mental model of the world deeper than the connection between one token and the next and a model of the human beings he was interacting with and an expectation of effecting that model to achieve actual differences in the observed world. In other words Google translate doesn't actually speak Chinese.
  - rlt 4y ago
    > An actual intelligence would have a mental model of the world deeper than the connection between one token and the next Why are you so confident in this? We don't really know how human "intelligence" works. Whose to say it's not doing something similar? It's a bit like saying an audio file doesn't contain "music" because it's just a binary representation of the original work.
    - TedDoesntTalk 4y ago
      > We don't really know how human "intelligence" works Or cepholapod intelligence. Or magpie/raven/crow intelligence.
    - aezart 4y ago
      If I ask a human what their favorite flavor of ice cream is, they will answer based on their actual preference for different kinds of ice cream. If I ask a chat LLM what its favorite flavor of ice cream is, it will select a statistically likely answer to the question. That's the difference. For reference: my favorite ice cream flavor is cake batter, but only if it's the one at Cold Stone. If it's from somewhere else, I go with cookie dough.
      - _yb2s 4y ago
        It seems to me that most of these arguments boil down to “it didn’t think or respond like I would expect a human to, therefore it isn’t intelligent.” This isn’t open minded to the diverse possibilities of non human intelligence, nor is it demonstrating a lack of understanding or real limitation. It doesn’t seem to have any sense of self beyond playing characters it was asked to play, yet those characters are able to intelligently select actions towards goals they were assigned by a prompt using creativity, complex reasoning, and deep understanding. This is a difference that isn’t an inferiority or shortcoming. I would even argue that humans are more similar to that than we think. The main difference is that one of the characters is locked to the surface most of the time (not even very perfectly).
espadrine 4y ago
> I'd like the "stochastic parrot" crew to explain how interactions like this somehow don't involve the extraction of and manipulation of abstract meaning. They don’t claim that it doesn’t. What they point out is that humans have a tendency to ascribe intent and agency to the text it outputs. But the LLM is optimized for prediction, not survival, unlike humans[0]: > Text generated by an LM is not grounded in communicative intent. […] Our perception of natural language [is mediated by] our predisposition to interpret communicative acts as conveying coherent meaning and intent Some of the dangers they raise associated with this is that it will not realize that words it chooses are PII, dangerous to give to who they are talking to, or biased in a way that can cause societal harm: > If the LM or word embeddings derived from it are used as components in a text classification system, these biases can lead to allocational and/or reputational harms. […] A Palestinian man [was] arrested by Israeli police, after MT translated his Facebook post which said “good morning” (in Arabic) to “hurt them” (in English). What they encourage is to view it as a tool and assess how it may fail. For instance, you might object that the MT was simply incorrect; but realistically, sentences can be translated in many ways and with many intents (eg. Allah Akbar has a lot of contexts!) and the LLM may not be given the full picture of the situation. The stochastic parrots paper is heavily misrepresented or used by people that don’t seem like they read it. For instance, it was cited in a recent petition asking to stop work on powerful AI, prompting a response from the authors[1] pointing out that it misunderstands the paper and emphasizing that they disagree with the petition. [0]: https://dl.acm.org/doi/pdf/10.1145/3442188.3445922 https://dl.acm.org/doi/pdf/10.1145/3442188.3445922 [1]: https://www.dair-institute.org/blog/letter-statement-March2023 https://www.dair-institute.org/blog/letter-statement-March20...
- knome 4y ago
  >The stochastic parrots paper is heavily misrepresented I listened to a lengthy video on the "stochastic parrot" from the Alan Turing Institute yesterday after having made that comment, and it was mostly on the topics you mentioned, subtle and overt bias, etc. I kept waiting on them to explain the "it's not real" bit that I've seen implied by the phrase where I've seen it used ( or perhaps, simply read into it myself ), but it never really came in. At the very end, one commentator made a comment implying it's not really all there and the next responding didn't disagree outright, but you could see a kind of "well yes, but actually no" kind of expression go across their face as they talked around it.
_yb2s 4y ago
I like the boats can’t swim summary of this disagreement. I think these two groups have been talking past each other, and this is the crux of the disagreement. Some people seem to expect AI to converge to being more like a human as it gets better and are stuck on how inhuman it is. They are not considering the endless possible types of non human intelligence. These differences should not be mistaken as inferiority, in many cases they will offer huge advantages.

by knome 4y ago

_yb2s 4y ago

I think this is a good example of deep conceptual understanding, I suspect if you posed this same problem to adult humans (e.g. me) they wouldn't be able to do as well.

michaelmrose 4y ago
An actual intelligence would have a mental model of the world deeper than the connection between one token and the next and a model of the human beings he was interacting with and an expectation of effecting that model to achieve actual differences in the observed world. In other words Google translate doesn't actually speak Chinese.
- rlt 4y ago
  > An actual intelligence would have a mental model of the world deeper than the connection between one token and the next Why are you so confident in this? We don't really know how human "intelligence" works. Whose to say it's not doing something similar? It's a bit like saying an audio file doesn't contain "music" because it's just a binary representation of the original work.
  - TedDoesntTalk 4y ago
    > We don't really know how human "intelligence" works Or cepholapod intelligence. Or magpie/raven/crow intelligence.
  - aezart 4y ago
    If I ask a human what their favorite flavor of ice cream is, they will answer based on their actual preference for different kinds of ice cream. If I ask a chat LLM what its favorite flavor of ice cream is, it will select a statistically likely answer to the question. That's the difference. For reference: my favorite ice cream flavor is cake batter, but only if it's the one at Cold Stone. If it's from somewhere else, I go with cookie dough.
    - _yb2s 4y ago
      It seems to me that most of these arguments boil down to “it didn’t think or respond like I would expect a human to, therefore it isn’t intelligent.” This isn’t open minded to the diverse possibilities of non human intelligence, nor is it demonstrating a lack of understanding or real limitation. It doesn’t seem to have any sense of self beyond playing characters it was asked to play, yet those characters are able to intelligently select actions towards goals they were assigned by a prompt using creativity, complex reasoning, and deep understanding. This is a difference that isn’t an inferiority or shortcoming. I would even argue that humans are more similar to that than we think. The main difference is that one of the characters is locked to the surface most of the time (not even very perfectly).

espadrine 4y ago

> I'd like the "stochastic parrot" crew to explain how interactions like this somehow don't involve the extraction of and manipulation of abstract meaning. They don’t claim that it doesn’t. What they point out is that humans have a tendency to ascribe intent and agency to the text it outputs. But the LLM is optimized for prediction, not survival, unlike humans[0]: > Text generated by an LM is not grounded in communicative intent. […] Our perception of natural language [is mediated by] our predisposition to interpret communicative acts as conveying coherent meaning and intent Some of the dangers they raise associated with this is that it will not realize that words it chooses are PII, dangerous to give to who they are talking to, or biased in a way that can cause societal harm: > If the LM or word embeddings derived from it are used as components in a text classification system, these biases can lead to allocational and/or reputational harms. […] A Palestinian man [was] arrested by Israeli police, after MT translated his Facebook post which said “good morning” (in Arabic) to “hurt them” (in English). What they encourage is to view it as a tool and assess how it may fail. For instance, you might object that the MT was simply incorrect; but realistically, sentences can be translated in many ways and with many intents (eg. Allah Akbar has a lot of contexts!) and the LLM may not be given the full picture of the situation. The stochastic parrots paper is heavily misrepresented or used by people that don’t seem like they read it. For instance, it was cited in a recent petition asking to stop work on powerful AI, prompting a response from the authors[1] pointing out that it misunderstands the paper and emphasizing that they disagree with the petition. [0]: https://dl.acm.org/doi/pdf/10.1145/3442188.3445922 https://dl.acm.org/doi/pdf/10.1145/3442188.3445922 [1]: https://www.dair-institute.org/blog/letter-statement-March2023 https://www.dair-institute.org/blog/letter-statement-March20...

knome 4y ago
>The stochastic parrots paper is heavily misrepresented I listened to a lengthy video on the "stochastic parrot" from the Alan Turing Institute yesterday after having made that comment, and it was mostly on the topics you mentioned, subtle and overt bias, etc. I kept waiting on them to explain the "it's not real" bit that I've seen implied by the phrase where I've seen it used ( or perhaps, simply read into it myself ), but it never really came in. At the very end, one commentator made a comment implying it's not really all there and the next responding didn't disagree outright, but you could see a kind of "well yes, but actually no" kind of expression go across their face as they talked around it.

_yb2s 4y ago

I like the boats can’t swim summary of this disagreement. I think these two groups have been talking past each other, and this is the crux of the disagreement. Some people seem to expect AI to converge to being more like a human as it gets better and are stuck on how inhuman it is. They are not considering the endless possible types of non human intelligence. These differences should not be mistaken as inferiority, in many cases they will offer huge advantages.