4 ms·
This is really lofty language without much evidence to back it up. It fluffs up techie people and makes them feel powerful, but it doesn't really describe large
by ttpphd 4y ago
This is really lofty language without much evidence to back it up. It fluffs up techie people and makes them feel powerful, but it doesn't really describe large language models nor does it describe linguistic processes.
- danenania 4y agoThe evidence is ChatGPT's output. Unless you're saying that passing the bar exam, writing working code, etc. doesn't require abstract reasoning abilities or a model of the world?
- ttpphd 4y agoIt's a large language model. It is fed training data. It is not that impressive when it spits out stuff that looks like its training data. You are the one asserting things without evidence.
- danenania 4y agoIt can pass tests and exams with answers that were not included in its training corpus. For example, it passed the 2023 unified bar exam, though its training cut off in 2021. Yes, it can look at previous test questions and answers, just like human law students can. Are you therefore claiming that human law students don't engage in abstract reasoning when they take the bar exam, since they studied with tests from previous years? It can also write code for novel use cases that have never been done before. I gave it a task like this a few days ago and it got it right on the first try. There are literally millions of empirical data points that contradict you.
- ttpphd 4y agoIt is a large language model. It manipulates text based on context and the imprint of its vast training. You are not able to articulate a theory of reasoning. You are just pointing to the output of an algorithm and saying "this must mean something!" There isn't even a working model of reasoning here, it's just a human being impressed that a tool for manipulating symbols is able to manipulate symbols after training it to manipulate symbols in the specific way that you want symbols manipulated. Where is your articulated theory of abstract reasoning?
- danenania 4y agoIt's not clear to me what point you're trying to make. Why do we need an "articulated theory of abstract reasoning" to say that passing the bar exam or writing code for novel, nontrivial tasks requires reasoning? Seems rather obvious.
- ttpphd 4y agoYou are making a claim that there is some attribute of importance. For that claim to be persuasive, it should be supported with an explanation of what that attribute is and is not, and evidence for or against the meeting of those criteria. So far all you have done is say "Look at the text it puts out, isn't that something?" It's just empty excitement, not a well-reasoned argument.
- danenania 4y agoYou keep avoiding this question: does passing the bar exam and writing code for novel, nontrivial tasks require reasoning or doesn't it? You aren't answering because saying no will sound ridiculous. We all know it requires reasoning. As for an "attribute of importance", I guess that's subjective, but I've used ChatGPT to write code in a few minutes that would have taken me hours of research and implementation. I've shipped that code to thousands of people. That's enough for it to be important to me, even ignoring other applications, but you certainly have the right to remain unimpressed if you so choose.
- ttpphd 4y agoFor a human, it takes human reasoning. But a xerox machine can also output the correct answers given the right inputs, which is exactly what you can say about an LLM. The "attribute of importance" I'm referring to is "rationality". You keep talking about it like it means something but you can't define it beyond "I'm pretty sure this text was made using it". Does a tape recording of a bird song "know" how to sing like a bird?
- 4y ago