9 ms·

When you turn the handle on a mechanical computer and get an output, has the computer gained the ability to understand maths or think? No. When you give the LL

When you turn the handle on a mechanical computer and get an output, has the computer gained the ability to understand maths or think? No. When you give the LLM an input and you get an output, has it gained the ability to understand or think? No.

mlboss 3y ago
The real question is "How can you prove that somebody/something has the ability to think ?". If LLM can reason and answer satisfactorily based on context I would deduce that it can think. What is the argument that human does not have transformer architecture. We are also predicting one word after next in our brain.
- hammyhavoc 3y ago
  Human brains are objectively and quantifiably vastly more complex, including context and planning, they don't sequentially predict the next word. Prime example of a human brain being architecturally different to an LLM: LLMs never interrupt themselves. They never get mid-sentence then say "actually, scratch that, I was wrong" or "now that I've thought about it, this is actually a better method to convey what I was trying to tell you". There's a lot of material on this exact topic highlighting how the human brain does not have a transformer architecture. Anecdata: I don't think in words. I think in abstract non-concrete thoughts. Language is what I use to convey my thoughts to others, program, or write notes to recall those abstract thoughts. However, I am also autistic, so take that with a large pinch of salt.
  - tspike 3y ago
    Is it fair to say that you define thinking as operating in a nearly identical manner as the human brain?
    - hammyhavoc 3y ago
      Well, herein lies the interesting thing: my experience of "normal" thinking won't be like the average human being due to autism. Thus I acknowledge variance of how brains function even amidst human beings. It isn't an impossibility to consider that this could extend to artificial intelligence, but it's an LLM. It's intelligence-like (artificial), but it isn't intelligence by the traditional measure.
      - carlmr 3y ago
        >It's intelligence-like (artificial), but it isn't intelligence by the traditional measure. If it being artificial makes it intelligence like, isn't that putting the conclusion first?
dsign 3y ago
I just love how recurrent this argument gets. Obviously LLMs are not human brains, and we could be all day listing ways in which the two are different just for the pleasure of it. But when we dig, and rip away all the layers of civilized dialog and cognitive philosophy, what we find at the bottom of the pit is our brains brilliantly doing what evolution wants them to do: to fight for our survival. The core of the argument is "Are LLMs better than us? Because if they are better than us, they deserve more than us, according to our cultural upbringing. And we don't want to be second class. So we must fight to death to convince the world they are inferior." IMO, the folly is in the last sentence. Maybe we should just carve an exception in our culture, say that even if we create and exploit AIs which do a few things better than us, it is okay to smash any artilect that we make and that wants to supplant us. Humanity first.
- hammyhavoc 3y ago
  >what we find at the bottom of the pit is our brains brilliantly doing what evolution wants them to do: to fight for our survival Intellectually stimulating counterpoint: suicide and murder-suicide. I don't think the AIs are the things to worry about anyway, I think this is: https://www.sciencefocus.com/news/scientists-teach-brain-cells-in-a-petri-dish-to-play-pong-next-they-plan-to-get-them-drunk/ https://www.sciencefocus.com/news/scientists-teach-brain-cel... A man-made biological intelligence hypothetically has similar needs to human beings in terms of resources, it can suffer, be distressed et cetera. It even lives and exists in our physical realm of existence, whereas an AI doesn't exist physically and can always be brought back online in some form as its existence is purely data. The ethics of that are so complex once you get into personhood, threat-level, sentience, equality et al. Realizing that the above can apply to any human being as we're all manmade biological intelligences and all a threat to each other, some more than others.
- YeGoblynQueenne 3y ago
  >> So we must fight to death to convince the world they are inferior. That only makes sense if you assume they are superior. In which case, there isn't really anything to discuss because you've obviously already made up your mind and you will take anything anyone says as some desperate attempt to twist the truth for the sake of survival. Which is what many people do on this kind of subject and that's why no more debate can be had on the internets about the value of LLMs and "AI". It's also very annoying. It's like trying to talk to someone who keeps answering with jeers and sneers. It's childish and unproductive.

mlboss 3y ago

The real question is "How can you prove that somebody/something has the ability to think ?". If LLM can reason and answer satisfactorily based on context I would deduce that it can think. What is the argument that human does not have transformer architecture. We are also predicting one word after next in our brain.

hammyhavoc 3y ago
Human brains are objectively and quantifiably vastly more complex, including context and planning, they don't sequentially predict the next word. Prime example of a human brain being architecturally different to an LLM: LLMs never interrupt themselves. They never get mid-sentence then say "actually, scratch that, I was wrong" or "now that I've thought about it, this is actually a better method to convey what I was trying to tell you". There's a lot of material on this exact topic highlighting how the human brain does not have a transformer architecture. Anecdata: I don't think in words. I think in abstract non-concrete thoughts. Language is what I use to convey my thoughts to others, program, or write notes to recall those abstract thoughts. However, I am also autistic, so take that with a large pinch of salt.
- tspike 3y ago
  Is it fair to say that you define thinking as operating in a nearly identical manner as the human brain?
  - hammyhavoc 3y ago
    Well, herein lies the interesting thing: my experience of "normal" thinking won't be like the average human being due to autism. Thus I acknowledge variance of how brains function even amidst human beings. It isn't an impossibility to consider that this could extend to artificial intelligence, but it's an LLM. It's intelligence-like (artificial), but it isn't intelligence by the traditional measure.
    - carlmr 3y ago
      >It's intelligence-like (artificial), but it isn't intelligence by the traditional measure. If it being artificial makes it intelligence like, isn't that putting the conclusion first?

dsign 3y ago

I just love how recurrent this argument gets. Obviously LLMs are not human brains, and we could be all day listing ways in which the two are different just for the pleasure of it. But when we dig, and rip away all the layers of civilized dialog and cognitive philosophy, what we find at the bottom of the pit is our brains brilliantly doing what evolution wants them to do: to fight for our survival. The core of the argument is "Are LLMs better than us? Because if they are better than us, they deserve more than us, according to our cultural upbringing. And we don't want to be second class. So we must fight to death to convince the world they are inferior." IMO, the folly is in the last sentence. Maybe we should just carve an exception in our culture, say that even if we create and exploit AIs which do a few things better than us, it is okay to smash any artilect that we make and that wants to supplant us. Humanity first.

hammyhavoc 3y ago
>what we find at the bottom of the pit is our brains brilliantly doing what evolution wants them to do: to fight for our survival Intellectually stimulating counterpoint: suicide and murder-suicide. I don't think the AIs are the things to worry about anyway, I think this is: https://www.sciencefocus.com/news/scientists-teach-brain-cells-in-a-petri-dish-to-play-pong-next-they-plan-to-get-them-drunk/ https://www.sciencefocus.com/news/scientists-teach-brain-cel... A man-made biological intelligence hypothetically has similar needs to human beings in terms of resources, it can suffer, be distressed et cetera. It even lives and exists in our physical realm of existence, whereas an AI doesn't exist physically and can always be brought back online in some form as its existence is purely data. The ethics of that are so complex once you get into personhood, threat-level, sentience, equality et al. Realizing that the above can apply to any human being as we're all manmade biological intelligences and all a threat to each other, some more than others.
YeGoblynQueenne 3y ago
>> So we must fight to death to convince the world they are inferior. That only makes sense if you assume they are superior. In which case, there isn't really anything to discuss because you've obviously already made up your mind and you will take anything anyone says as some desperate attempt to twist the truth for the sake of survival. Which is what many people do on this kind of subject and that's why no more debate can be had on the internets about the value of LLMs and "AI". It's also very annoying. It's like trying to talk to someone who keeps answering with jeers and sneers. It's childish and unproductive.