3 ms·
> "I think this assessment is wrong on many levels" Ok so in your expert opinion, what is it actually doing? > "Exactly what it does, no one really knows, not
by mike_d 3y ago
> "I think this assessment is wrong on many levels"
Ok so in your expert opinion, what is it actually doing?
> "Exactly what it does, no one really knows, not even its creators."
I mean, it obviously couldn't just be feeding all the previous text into a model that statistically predicts the next likely words and then does some post processing to intelligently pick one of the high ranked words, just like the developers say. Because that would just be a statistical text predictor.
People seem to really hate the idea that something so simple can fool them into thinking it is alive, like it is a challenge to their own intelligence.
- sebzim4500 3y ago> I mean, it obviously couldn't just be feeding all the previous text into a model that statistically predicts the next likely words and then does some post processing to intelligently pick one of the high ranked words, just like the developers say. Of course that's what it's doing, but if I ask you how you typed that comment you wouldn't say "trillions of synapses whose connection strength was determined based partly on my genetics but mostly on all my sensory data since I've been alive ended up firing in order to make my fingers press the 'reply' button". Do not mistake understanding the substrate and the loss function with understanding the actual model.
- mike_d 3y agoSure, but saying "it is magic and nobody really knows how" when we have a solid scientific basis for how messages are carried from the brain to the fingers is highly disingenuous.
- sebzim4500 3y agoI agree that saying that "it is magic and nobody knows how" is not a good explanation for anything. But saying "we understand the substrate so we are done" is no better.