4 ms·
This has been talked over and over already. The conclusion is that eventually, you don't know what are the actual differences between "reasoning" and "next toke
by galaxytachyon 4y ago
This has been talked over and over already. The conclusion is that eventually, you don't know what are the actual differences between "reasoning" and "next token prediction" in a real human.
On one hand, it makes this topic difficult to follow since stuff aren't clearly defined anymore and to software folks, I assume this is a major problem. On the other hand, it is fascinating how this has actually resembled biology where literally everything is poorly documented and for every rule, there is a glaring exception or flagrant violation of it, existing simply just to spite that rule and our understanding of it.
- tomrod 4y ago> This has been talked over and over already. The conclusion is that eventually, you don't know what are the actual differences between "reasoning" and "next token prediction" in a real human. I disagree with this conclusion, which some supporters of GPT-4 being a reasoning engine might find distressing.
- galaxytachyon 4y agoFrom what I have seen, you can't really articulate why you disagreed. Your arguments appears to be another form of "humans have it, this AI doesn't" but fail to specifically define what is this "it". The AI effect is a real thing. And even real humans had been considered unable to "reason" once upon a time. I will give everything the benefits of the doubt concerning intelligence and sentience. Because history has shown how terrible it would be to get a false negative.