4 ms·

It does just predict the next word, yes, but it turns out that predicting the next word is a complex problem that involves solving many types of subproblems tha

It does just predict the next word, yes, but it turns out that predicting the next word is a complex problem that involves solving many types of subproblems that involve relatively complex reasoning, or at least something that looks very, very much like reasoning

hammyhavoc 4y ago
Is it any more reasoning than Bayes' theorem is reasoning? It's statistics and derived probability from said statistics.
- circuit10 4y ago
  > Bayesian inference is a method of statistical inference in which Bayes' theorem is used to update the probability for a hypothesis as more evidence or information becomes available. That is very clearly reasoning
  - hammyhavoc 4y ago
    No, it's probability entered into an algorithm as a variable. This is not reasoning, this is probability, and there is no reasoning involved. Go and program HomeAssistant (FOSS) with an automation using Bayes' theorem. Then proceed to laugh about all the fail states you encounter, thus realizing it is not reasoning, but probability. https://community.home-assistant.io/t/how-bayes-sensors-work-from-a-statistics-professor-with-working-google-sheets/143177 https://community.home-assistant.io/t/how-bayes-sensors-work... It's quite literally known as Bayesian probability.
    - circuit10 4y ago
      I will admit that I don't know much about Bayesian statistics, but how does something producing probability as an output mean it's not reasoning? I'm pretty sure humans do that consciously and subconsciously all the time and we call that reasoning
      - hammyhavoc 4y ago
        Because it's just an arbitrary number. It has no concept of what the numbers mean or what it means when it gets a number that it doesn't have in its existing data set (the "training", more accurately described as references), whereas a human being can make an educated guess, or adapt to the unexpected outcome and thus provide a new novel solution. It isn't thinking about the numbers, it's executing maths, as programmed. Is a calculator reasoning? It doesn't understand what the numbers mean. It's an input-output machine. Is a sheet of paper with numbers on it the process of reasoning itself? No, of course not. Human beings apply meaning to the output, or feed that output into other things to drive processes that they've already created. If you kick the Boston Dynamics BigDog, it will compensate for the changes in x sensors and remain upright, or get back up, ergo it can traverse a dynamic (changing) environment, such as a battlefield, or an urban area with cars, people etc. It's not reasoning. It's conditional logic based on different vars. The BigDog bot doesn't understand what it is, where it's going, it doesn't think, it's applying maths to sensor inputs and motors on a recursive loop. If it encounters a problem it hasn't been programmed for, it cannot reason a new solution. By your logic, video game characters must use reasoning, when no, they don't. It's maths. Is it all fascinating? Yes, absolutely. Are there uses for it? Yes, absolutely. Is it reasoning? No.
        circuit10 4y ago
        If a human brain doesn’t use maths, what does it use? It’s Magic? > "training", more accurately described as references Uh, no, that's not at all how the training process works. The training process very roughly mirrors evolution/natural selection except more more direct and faster. This is a good introduction to the concept of how a computer could learn: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qv6UVOQ0F44 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qv6UVOQ0F44 This is a more technical look at how exactly it works in more modern AIs: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aircAruvnKk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aircAruvnKk (it's a series) > If it encounters a problem it hasn't been programmed for, it cannot reason a new solution. But an LLM can? It's not as good at it as a human but it can Relevant: https://twitter.com/nearcyan/status/1632661647226462211 https://twitter.com/nearcyan/status/1632661647226462211 (if you don’t want to click it it says “referring to AI models as "just math" or "matrix multiplication" is as uselessly reductive as referring to tigers as "just biology" or "biochemical reactions"”) > By your logic, video game characters must use reasoning, when no, they don't. It's maths. “By your logic, if tigers are dangerous, then bananas must be too, when no, they aren’t. It’s biology.”

hammyhavoc 4y ago

Is it any more reasoning than Bayes' theorem is reasoning? It's statistics and derived probability from said statistics.

circuit10 4y ago
> Bayesian inference is a method of statistical inference in which Bayes' theorem is used to update the probability for a hypothesis as more evidence or information becomes available. That is very clearly reasoning
- hammyhavoc 4y ago
  No, it's probability entered into an algorithm as a variable. This is not reasoning, this is probability, and there is no reasoning involved. Go and program HomeAssistant (FOSS) with an automation using Bayes' theorem. Then proceed to laugh about all the fail states you encounter, thus realizing it is not reasoning, but probability. https://community.home-assistant.io/t/how-bayes-sensors-work-from-a-statistics-professor-with-working-google-sheets/143177 https://community.home-assistant.io/t/how-bayes-sensors-work... It's quite literally known as Bayesian probability.
  - circuit10 4y ago
    I will admit that I don't know much about Bayesian statistics, but how does something producing probability as an output mean it's not reasoning? I'm pretty sure humans do that consciously and subconsciously all the time and we call that reasoning
    - hammyhavoc 4y ago
      Because it's just an arbitrary number. It has no concept of what the numbers mean or what it means when it gets a number that it doesn't have in its existing data set (the "training", more accurately described as references), whereas a human being can make an educated guess, or adapt to the unexpected outcome and thus provide a new novel solution. It isn't thinking about the numbers, it's executing maths, as programmed. Is a calculator reasoning? It doesn't understand what the numbers mean. It's an input-output machine. Is a sheet of paper with numbers on it the process of reasoning itself? No, of course not. Human beings apply meaning to the output, or feed that output into other things to drive processes that they've already created. If you kick the Boston Dynamics BigDog, it will compensate for the changes in x sensors and remain upright, or get back up, ergo it can traverse a dynamic (changing) environment, such as a battlefield, or an urban area with cars, people etc. It's not reasoning. It's conditional logic based on different vars. The BigDog bot doesn't understand what it is, where it's going, it doesn't think, it's applying maths to sensor inputs and motors on a recursive loop. If it encounters a problem it hasn't been programmed for, it cannot reason a new solution. By your logic, video game characters must use reasoning, when no, they don't. It's maths. Is it all fascinating? Yes, absolutely. Are there uses for it? Yes, absolutely. Is it reasoning? No.
      - circuit10 4y ago
        If a human brain doesn’t use maths, what does it use? It’s Magic? > "training", more accurately described as references Uh, no, that's not at all how the training process works. The training process very roughly mirrors evolution/natural selection except more more direct and faster. This is a good introduction to the concept of how a computer could learn: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qv6UVOQ0F44 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qv6UVOQ0F44 This is a more technical look at how exactly it works in more modern AIs: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aircAruvnKk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aircAruvnKk (it's a series) > If it encounters a problem it hasn't been programmed for, it cannot reason a new solution. But an LLM can? It's not as good at it as a human but it can Relevant: https://twitter.com/nearcyan/status/1632661647226462211 https://twitter.com/nearcyan/status/1632661647226462211 (if you don’t want to click it it says “referring to AI models as "just math" or "matrix multiplication" is as uselessly reductive as referring to tigers as "just biology" or "biochemical reactions"”) > By your logic, video game characters must use reasoning, when no, they don't. It's maths. “By your logic, if tigers are dangerous, then bananas must be too, when no, they aren’t. It’s biology.”