4 ms·

> My standing argument is that they wouldn't hallucinate incorrect responses if they understood anything Alexander Grothendieck, one of the greatest mathematic

by p-e-w 4y ago

> My standing argument is that they wouldn't hallucinate incorrect responses if they understood anything Alexander Grothendieck, one of the greatest mathematicians of the 20th century, answered "57" when asked in a public lecture to provide an example of a prime number. 57 = 3 * 19 is not a prime number. According to your argument, this would imply Grothendieck did not understand what a prime number is. Which is laughable.

deafpolygon 4y ago
Humans are not infallible. It's a mistake to anthromorphize LLM.
- SanderNL 4y ago
  LLM wrong => unredeemable and fatally flawed human wrong => no problem, mistakes happen
  - lewhoo 4y ago
    Yeah, a little bit. Our biology makes us unpredictable to a certain degree. In simple terms we're allowed to have a bad or a good day. LLM's remain unchangeable and simple mistakes they make can't be explained in the same manner I think.
    - SanderNL 4y ago
      I get the reflex, but this becomes increasingly untenable as their complexity balloons. (Our "biology" is some sort of code for "it's complex".)
    - gmerc 3y ago
      But LLMs are not unchangable, there are several mechanisms available by now to drive change and learning (especially as context windows improve) Practically for outcomes it doesn’t matter if that learning is happening in the LLM or on a layer above it.
  - ChatGTP 4y ago
    I guess now computer systems have personalities, biases, make things up is kind of different? I guess we've come to expect more.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
vixen99 4y ago
Good point. Within organisms there are a number of survival mechanisms even in juveniles. Braitenberg hypothesized simple mechanical vehicles that evolved survival tactics. Not understanding the latter will ultimately be a fatal flaw irrespective of any insightful understanding of other problems. If Grothendieck had known he faced execution for failing to give a correct response, he would certainly have survived. I'd be interested to see AI configurations linked to a number of direct externalities (not linked to human derived/directed information) that might then determine their fate. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Braitenberg_vehicle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Braitenberg_vehicle Samuel Johnson: “Depend upon it, sir, when a man knows he is to be hanged in a fortnight, it concentrates his mind wonderfully.”
_8j50 4y ago
My argument is not that it shouldn't make a mistake but that it cannot recognize it's mistake and correct it because it would have. That mathematician I am sure recognize that 57 isn't a prime number if you ask him again. Also mathematics is not the right field to compare this to because there are rules. In languages and object recognition/synthesis it is all subjective. Understanding here means understanding context and human-subjective interpretation. When I say "that sunset is beautiful" you understand what I mean, ML models simply approximate based on what they see other humans do or say. I am not calling the sunset beautiful because other people are, it is my own subjective interpretation.

by p-e-w 4y ago

deafpolygon 4y ago

Humans are not infallible. It's a mistake to anthromorphize LLM.

SanderNL 4y ago
LLM wrong => unredeemable and fatally flawed human wrong => no problem, mistakes happen
- lewhoo 4y ago
  Yeah, a little bit. Our biology makes us unpredictable to a certain degree. In simple terms we're allowed to have a bad or a good day. LLM's remain unchangeable and simple mistakes they make can't be explained in the same manner I think.
  - SanderNL 4y ago
    I get the reflex, but this becomes increasingly untenable as their complexity balloons. (Our "biology" is some sort of code for "it's complex".)
  - gmerc 3y ago
    But LLMs are not unchangable, there are several mechanisms available by now to drive change and learning (especially as context windows improve) Practically for outcomes it doesn’t matter if that learning is happening in the LLM or on a layer above it.
- ChatGTP 4y ago
  I guess now computer systems have personalities, biases, make things up is kind of different? I guess we've come to expect more.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

vixen99 4y ago

Good point. Within organisms there are a number of survival mechanisms even in juveniles. Braitenberg hypothesized simple mechanical vehicles that evolved survival tactics. Not understanding the latter will ultimately be a fatal flaw irrespective of any insightful understanding of other problems. If Grothendieck had known he faced execution for failing to give a correct response, he would certainly have survived. I'd be interested to see AI configurations linked to a number of direct externalities (not linked to human derived/directed information) that might then determine their fate. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Braitenberg_vehicle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Braitenberg_vehicle Samuel Johnson: “Depend upon it, sir, when a man knows he is to be hanged in a fortnight, it concentrates his mind wonderfully.”

_8j50 4y ago

My argument is not that it shouldn't make a mistake but that it cannot recognize it's mistake and correct it because it would have. That mathematician I am sure recognize that 57 isn't a prime number if you ask him again. Also mathematics is not the right field to compare this to because there are rules. In languages and object recognition/synthesis it is all subjective. Understanding here means understanding context and human-subjective interpretation. When I say "that sunset is beautiful" you understand what I mean, ML models simply approximate based on what they see other humans do or say. I am not calling the sunset beautiful because other people are, it is my own subjective interpretation.