6 ms·

It doesn't "know" either. We continue to anthromopomorphize these models, which put uncredited doomsayers like Eliezer Yudkowsky on a pedestal.

circuit10 3y ago
What’s wrong with the word “know”? And with Eliezer Yudkowsky?
- hammyhavoc 3y ago
  Because it's a word prediction engine. It's just tokens and Bayesian inference. It has no understanding of what it's doing. If a math textbook has sentence x written in it, does the textbook know this information, or does it just have this information stored in it in a human-readable format? LLMs only present their stored data in a human-readable format on the output, the data set itself isn't readable.
  - hackinthebochs 3y ago
    It would be nice if the naysayers could offer an argument in favor of it being "just" bayesian inference, or even explain what it would mean for it to be more than just statistics or bayesian inference. There is reason to believe these models are demonstrating the traits of understanding in some cases. I argue the point in some detail here: https://www.reddit.com/r/naturalism/comments/1236vzf https://www.reddit.com/r/naturalism/comments/1236vzf
  - circuit10 3y ago
    But LLMs use and reason with the data, so the word “know” is probably appropriate. Think of it as a analogy, if you want, but it’s reasonable to draw a comparison with what humans do. Even without the reasoning part I’m sure people already use the word “know” to describe how software is able to perform a task or make use of information. “It has no understanding” I keep seeing this claim, I don’t understand what it’s supposed to mean. Do we humans have this magical “true understanding”? Can we test for it?
    - JohnFen 3y ago
      I would say that "understanding" something means that you have a mental model of that thing. The more accurate and complete that mental model is, the "deeper" the understanding. LLMs, as I (ahem) understand them, do not have models of the things they're writing about. They do have a model of language (or whatever symbolic system they were trained on), but that's where it ends.
      - hammyhavoc 3y ago
        I agree! I asked ChatGPT "Does an LLM understand, or is it simply Bayesian inference?", and the most relevant part of its output: "The model's understanding of language is derived from the vast amount of text it has been trained on. By capturing statistical regularities and patterns, an LLM can generate text that appears to be comprehensible and contextually appropriate. However, it's important to note that LLMs do not possess true understanding or consciousness. They lack semantic or conceptual understanding in the way humans do. Overall, an LLM employs a combination of statistical techniques, including Bayesian inference, and pattern recognition to generate text that simulates understanding to a certain extent."
      - circuit10 3y ago
        If it had no model of what it was writing about it wouldn’t be able to write anything coherent. It obviously has a world model, it’s not as advanced as what a human has but it’s there
        hammyhavoc 3y ago
        The clue is in the name, it's a large language model. When I asked ChatGPT "Does ChatGPT have a world model?", I got this output: "ChatGPT, like other GPT models, does not possess an explicit world model. GPT (Generative Pre-trained Transformer) models, such as ChatGPT, are trained on a large corpus of text data from the internet and do not have direct access to real-time information about the world. They rely solely on the patterns and information they have learned from their training data. While GPT models can generate contextually relevant and coherent responses based on their training, they do not possess up-to-date knowledge or awareness of current events. Their responses are primarily based on patterns, associations, and statistical regularities present in the text they were trained on, rather than an explicit representation of the world. It's important to note that GPT models can occasionally generate plausible-sounding but inaccurate or misleading information, especially when prompted with questions or topics beyond the scope of their training data. Therefore, it's always advisable to verify information from reliable sources when seeking accurate and up-to-date information about the world." When I asked it "Does a large language model infer an understanding of a topic?", it gave this output: "A large language model, such as ChatGPT, can exhibit the appearance of understanding a topic due to its ability to generate coherent and contextually relevant responses. It can make inferences based on patterns and associations learned from its training data, which allows it to generate text that appears knowledgeable about a particular subject. However, it's crucial to understand that this understanding is derived solely from statistical patterns present in the training data, and the model does not possess true comprehension or conceptual understanding like humans do. The model does not have access to real-world experiences, common sense, or the ability to reason in the same way as humans. The responses generated by a language model should be interpreted as a combination of learned patterns and statistical associations rather than as genuine understanding. The model lacks the ability to deeply grasp the meaning, implications, or nuances of a topic beyond what it has learned from the text it was trained on. Therefore, it's essential to approach the responses generated by a language model critically and corroborate information from reliable sources when necessary."
- emptysongglass 3y ago
  He's a self-appointed expert who is neither an AI researcher, computer scientist, or any other accredited title you'd expect someone loudly yelling, “WE'RE ALL GOING TO DIE” on a technical topic like the fundamentals of AI and its dangers to hold. You and others continue to foist human qualities on LLMs because it looks like magic. To know is to know oneself. LLMs do not know themselves. In fact, there is no “self” to know.
  - circuit10 3y ago
    I don’t know much about him but I thought he was a researcher? There is an “Academic publications” section on https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eliezer_Yudkowsky https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eliezer_Yudkowsky and it says “He is a co-founder and research fellow at the Machine Intelligence Research Institute” LLMs are not self aware, I agree, but there is clearly some reasoning going on and you could argue that its model of human behaviour can somewhat simulate self awareness
    - hammyhavoc 3y ago
      > its model of human behaviour What model of human behaviour? I asked ChatGPT if it has a model of human behaviour, and it said "ChatGPT does not have an explicit model of human behavior".
      - circuit10 3y ago
        As I just said ChatGPT is not self aware, so it can’t answer questions about it’s own workings like that. (this is somewhat true of humans too though, there is a lot going on in our subconscious, but we are aware of our own conscious thoughts to some extent at least) It just hallucinated an answer If it didn’t have a model of human behaviour, then it wouldn’t work, because the whole idea is it’s simulating what someone acting as a helpful assistant would do.
        hammyhavoc 3y ago
        Self-awareness isn't a requirement for the presentation of information, which LLMs continually prove. Is every answer thus not a hallucination by this logic? If it's trained on external information, why would this information not include observations and information made about it? A human doesn't need to be able to even read to present a book to someone else with contextually relevant information.

circuit10 3y ago

What’s wrong with the word “know”? And with Eliezer Yudkowsky?

hammyhavoc 3y ago
Because it's a word prediction engine. It's just tokens and Bayesian inference. It has no understanding of what it's doing. If a math textbook has sentence x written in it, does the textbook know this information, or does it just have this information stored in it in a human-readable format? LLMs only present their stored data in a human-readable format on the output, the data set itself isn't readable.
- hackinthebochs 3y ago
  It would be nice if the naysayers could offer an argument in favor of it being "just" bayesian inference, or even explain what it would mean for it to be more than just statistics or bayesian inference. There is reason to believe these models are demonstrating the traits of understanding in some cases. I argue the point in some detail here: https://www.reddit.com/r/naturalism/comments/1236vzf https://www.reddit.com/r/naturalism/comments/1236vzf
- circuit10 3y ago
  But LLMs use and reason with the data, so the word “know” is probably appropriate. Think of it as a analogy, if you want, but it’s reasonable to draw a comparison with what humans do. Even without the reasoning part I’m sure people already use the word “know” to describe how software is able to perform a task or make use of information. “It has no understanding” I keep seeing this claim, I don’t understand what it’s supposed to mean. Do we humans have this magical “true understanding”? Can we test for it?
  - JohnFen 3y ago
    I would say that "understanding" something means that you have a mental model of that thing. The more accurate and complete that mental model is, the "deeper" the understanding. LLMs, as I (ahem) understand them, do not have models of the things they're writing about. They do have a model of language (or whatever symbolic system they were trained on), but that's where it ends.
    - hammyhavoc 3y ago
      I agree! I asked ChatGPT "Does an LLM understand, or is it simply Bayesian inference?", and the most relevant part of its output: "The model's understanding of language is derived from the vast amount of text it has been trained on. By capturing statistical regularities and patterns, an LLM can generate text that appears to be comprehensible and contextually appropriate. However, it's important to note that LLMs do not possess true understanding or consciousness. They lack semantic or conceptual understanding in the way humans do. Overall, an LLM employs a combination of statistical techniques, including Bayesian inference, and pattern recognition to generate text that simulates understanding to a certain extent."
    - circuit10 3y ago
      If it had no model of what it was writing about it wouldn’t be able to write anything coherent. It obviously has a world model, it’s not as advanced as what a human has but it’s there
      - hammyhavoc 3y ago
        The clue is in the name, it's a large language model. When I asked ChatGPT "Does ChatGPT have a world model?", I got this output: "ChatGPT, like other GPT models, does not possess an explicit world model. GPT (Generative Pre-trained Transformer) models, such as ChatGPT, are trained on a large corpus of text data from the internet and do not have direct access to real-time information about the world. They rely solely on the patterns and information they have learned from their training data. While GPT models can generate contextually relevant and coherent responses based on their training, they do not possess up-to-date knowledge or awareness of current events. Their responses are primarily based on patterns, associations, and statistical regularities present in the text they were trained on, rather than an explicit representation of the world. It's important to note that GPT models can occasionally generate plausible-sounding but inaccurate or misleading information, especially when prompted with questions or topics beyond the scope of their training data. Therefore, it's always advisable to verify information from reliable sources when seeking accurate and up-to-date information about the world." When I asked it "Does a large language model infer an understanding of a topic?", it gave this output: "A large language model, such as ChatGPT, can exhibit the appearance of understanding a topic due to its ability to generate coherent and contextually relevant responses. It can make inferences based on patterns and associations learned from its training data, which allows it to generate text that appears knowledgeable about a particular subject. However, it's crucial to understand that this understanding is derived solely from statistical patterns present in the training data, and the model does not possess true comprehension or conceptual understanding like humans do. The model does not have access to real-world experiences, common sense, or the ability to reason in the same way as humans. The responses generated by a language model should be interpreted as a combination of learned patterns and statistical associations rather than as genuine understanding. The model lacks the ability to deeply grasp the meaning, implications, or nuances of a topic beyond what it has learned from the text it was trained on. Therefore, it's essential to approach the responses generated by a language model critically and corroborate information from reliable sources when necessary."
emptysongglass 3y ago
He's a self-appointed expert who is neither an AI researcher, computer scientist, or any other accredited title you'd expect someone loudly yelling, “WE'RE ALL GOING TO DIE” on a technical topic like the fundamentals of AI and its dangers to hold. You and others continue to foist human qualities on LLMs because it looks like magic. To know is to know oneself. LLMs do not know themselves. In fact, there is no “self” to know.
- circuit10 3y ago
  I don’t know much about him but I thought he was a researcher? There is an “Academic publications” section on https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eliezer_Yudkowsky https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eliezer_Yudkowsky and it says “He is a co-founder and research fellow at the Machine Intelligence Research Institute” LLMs are not self aware, I agree, but there is clearly some reasoning going on and you could argue that its model of human behaviour can somewhat simulate self awareness
  - hammyhavoc 3y ago
    > its model of human behaviour What model of human behaviour? I asked ChatGPT if it has a model of human behaviour, and it said "ChatGPT does not have an explicit model of human behavior".
    - circuit10 3y ago
      As I just said ChatGPT is not self aware, so it can’t answer questions about it’s own workings like that. (this is somewhat true of humans too though, there is a lot going on in our subconscious, but we are aware of our own conscious thoughts to some extent at least) It just hallucinated an answer If it didn’t have a model of human behaviour, then it wouldn’t work, because the whole idea is it’s simulating what someone acting as a helpful assistant would do.
      - hammyhavoc 3y ago
        Self-awareness isn't a requirement for the presentation of information, which LLMs continually prove. Is every answer thus not a hallucination by this logic? If it's trained on external information, why would this information not include observations and information made about it? A human doesn't need to be able to even read to present a book to someone else with contextually relevant information.