13 ms·
People are using ChatGPT and observing it keep track of conversation state, so if you are going to claim it has no internal state you will need to be more preci
by jackmott42 3y ago
People are using ChatGPT and observing it keep track of conversation state, so if you are going to claim it has no internal state you will need to be more precise in what you are saying, which I suppose is that the underlying neural network is not being updated as we talk to it?
yet
- Robotbeat 3y agoThe attention matrix/matrices are being updated as you talk to it, within the context window.
- jameshart 3y agoWhich is literally internal state.
- fauxpause_ 3y agoFalse. They are being updated during the response only. Edit: false-ish I suppose. You’re not wrong. But it doesn’t persist in a way people would assume and consider meaningful.
- Robotbeat 3y agoYeah, I was referring to dialogue style interaction, like ChatGPT. It DOES have an internal state depending on version of from 4000 to 32000 tokens. It’s wiped clean between sessions, like a Meeseeks ceasing to exist once its task is finished.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- fauxpause_ 3y agoThat’s external state. I believe it just feeds the bot the entire conversation each time. I’m open to being shown otherwise. That is to say, swapping out bots midway through the conversation should have no impact.
- sdenton4 3y agoThere are piles of intermediate hidden activations involved in encoding the conversation and producing the next outputs, of course. "Internal" state also gets a bit weird as a concept when we can look at any activations we want.
- fauxpause_ 3y agoWe can surely construct a different definition if you want to win a semantic argument. But at the end of the day these LLMs have no clue what you just said and what it just said, after it’s done speaking.
- sdenton4 3y agoWhy is that a prerequisite for intelligence? Suppose we could upload + fully simulate a human mind. Now suppose that we chose to spin it up, run it briefly, then throw away all the state every time we wanted to interact with it. Would the choice to throw away the internal state mean it wasn't intelligent? LLMs run in an autoregressive mode for inference. We can concatenate conversations, but choose not to because shit gets weird if you let them run long enough, and partly because there's a finite context window in the current architectures. I'm not saying that gpt is intelligent, mind you, but that your argument is insufficient to show non intelligence: it's really a 'airplanes can't fly because they don't flap their wings' argument.
- fauxpause_ 3y agoA human mind works by cross referencing sensory inputs with internal state, which may result in answering a question through some sort of reasoning, which may resemble the architecture of a neural net. An LLM is stateless function that answers a question. It constructs a working representation of the question. It cannot be aware of itself because there is nothing to be aware of. It is a process, not a thing. Intelligence and self aware are fluffy and poorly defined. But you can’t be self aware if you don’t have a self. And a representation of a prompt is not a self. I don’t think we should consider anything that does not exist through continuous time to be intelligent personally.