5 ms·
Well then time to find new theories to test. GPTs are great but clearly dont have a model of the world, self, or others because they have not been engineered in
by seydor 4y ago
Well then time to find new theories to test. GPTs are great but clearly dont have a model of the world, self, or others because they have not been engineered in. It's probably going to take a lot of additional subsystems until this thing gets self-reflective. The hypothesis that, by scaling the giant clockwork, these things will magically emerge is .. magical and unproven.
The great thing for cognitice scientists /linguists is that we now have a quantitative, precise framework and no longer need to talk in terms of the folk intelligence science of the past.
- maister 4y ago> because they have not been engineered The fundamental concept behind LLMs is to allow the model to autonomously deduce concepts, rather than explicitly engineering solutions into the system.
- seydor 4y agoThe fundamental concept is to learn the statistics of text, and in the process it models the syntax via long-range connections successfully. There is no indication that it actively generates "concepts" or that it knows what concepts are. In fact the model is not self-reflective at all, it cannot observe its own activation or tell me anything about it.
- circuit10 4y agoThere is an indication, you can find it by clicking on this post. The self-reflection part is probably true, but that’s not strictly necessary to understand concepts
- seydor 4y agoit is important in order for us to accept it as an agent that understands things, because self-reflection is so important and obvious to us.
- timschmidt 4y agoI'm still waiting for someone to prove beyond a shadow of doubt that humans have a single one of these features we're debating about the presence or absence of in LLMs.
- seydor 4y agothere is no way to prove because those are subjective to humans. LLMs would have to at least show they have a subjective view (currently the 'internal world' they report is inconsistent)
- timschmidt 4y agoThe internal worlds of humans are inconsistent: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shadow_(psychology) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shadow_(psychology)
- mr_toad 4y ago> learn the statistics > what concepts are How do you know concepts aren’t just statistics?
- seydor 4y ago"concept" is ill-defined , it s a subjective thing that humans invented. It is probably not possible to define it without a sense (a definition) of self.
- nitwit005 4y ago> Well then time to find new theories to test. You're essentially requesting the goalpost be moved.
- seydor 4y agoYes. these goalposts were just a test but it's not satisfactory enough to make the AI more of a person. If that were true, ChatGPT would be allowed to participate in here The cognitive tests we rely on (turing test, chinese room etc etc ) are woefully outdated and inadequate for our time The goalposts will always be moved btw, because our experience of intelligence is subjective and we 'll never have an objective measure of it. At some point we will stop moving them because we ve ran out of ideas. At that point we can say we have a facsimile of our intelligence
- yarg 4y agoI think people are overstating the capabilities of these programs (things get confusing when software starts to pass the Turing test). However: > but clearly dont have a model of the world, self, or others because they have not been engineered in Neither did we. > The hypothesis that, by scaling the giant clockwork, these things will magically emerge is .. magical and unproven. Our sapience was and is an emergent phenomenon, (superstition aside) was that magic?
- seydor 4y agohumans have a lot more subsystems that were shaped by evolution, not just by inflating a giant cortex. Many animals have even bigger cortex but show no sign of humanlike intelligent behavior and communication