3 ms·

"Well, how does one verify that an entity understands what a rock is? " For starters, it would mean, that it can reliable detect a rock on an image, e.g. recog

"Well, how does one verify that an entity understands what a rock is? " For starters, it would mean, that it can reliable detect a rock on an image, e.g. recognizing the characteristical traits of a rock. Currently a apple gets recognized as an iPod, when there is a label on it saying so. "When we put a label saying “iPod” on this Granny Smith apple, the model erroneously classifies it as an iPod in the zero-shot setting,’ " https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2021/mar/08/typographic-attack-pen-paper-fool-ai-thinking-apple-ipod-clip https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2021/mar/08/typograph... So this specific flaw might have been fixed by now, but the general shortcoming is, that it has no understanding of the concept of an apple. Or a rock. Or a human. It just "knows" certain pixels arranged in a certain way get the lable apple. "The education system clearly has no idea how to test for understanding of literally anything." And that is very strong hyperbole. There are many, many flaws in the education system, but they do know how to test knowledge (in person). They just do not know how to scale it cheaply, hence the stupid multi choice tests and co.

moffkalast 3y ago
Just gonna leave these here: https://static.independent.co.uk/s3fs-public/thumbnails/image/2016/02/14/12/duck-rabbit.png?width=1200 https://static.independent.co.uk/s3fs-public/thumbnails/imag... https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/2/21/The_dress_blueblackwhitegold.jpg https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/2/21/The_dress_blu... What do you classify it as, a rabbit or a duck? Is the dress blue and black or white and gold? :) Also you do know some people literally fall to the floor and start convulsing if you show them some flashing lights right? Every system has its "glitch tokens". I mean is it really surprising that when you greatly simplify the principle that organic neurons work on, quantize it to the point where it's fast enough to use, have it learn no model of the world besides looking at photos and telling it what it's looking at, that it'd have weird corner cases? I really don't think so. If you want to compare fairly, you'd have to do so with a human that's never spoken to anyone, never seen anything but 2D pictures on a screen in front of them and hasn't been told or shown anything about the world they live in since they were born. And that's would be with the advantage of having six million years of base model training beforehand. > And that is very strong hyperbole. Well sure I guess it's mainly out of lack of care and practicality, but still even more elaborate tests like ones for say, math or physics that have you write the entire procedure don't really test if you understand the underlying principles, just that you've seen that type of problem before and can remember the equations correctly. The LLM bread and butter functionality basically.
- hutzlibu 3y ago
  I don't find the example right now, but you can give AIs just some pixels they would classify as dog or whatever. A human would only classify something that has the attributes of a dog as a dog. That's a difference from corner cases and unclear dress examples "If you want to compare fairly, you'd have to do so with a human that's never spoken to anyone, never seen anything but 2D pictures on a screen in front of them and hasn't been told or shown anything about the world they live in since they were born" And this is not what is happening with AIs. They get fed with data that sums up more than a single human lifespan. ", but still even more elaborate tests like ones for say, math or physics that have you write the entire procedure don't really test if you understand the underlying principles" And this is not true, except for high school tests. You certainly can test for understanding, by not giving generic problems, but where you have to apply your knowlege. And sure those were the most hated tests, as they required actual understanding and you could nvot weasel through. But they also created more work for teachers, so mosts tests were just the generic have you learned the algorithm tests. And if testing in person, you can go deep.

moffkalast 3y ago

Just gonna leave these here: https://static.independent.co.uk/s3fs-public/thumbnails/image/2016/02/14/12/duck-rabbit.png?width=1200 https://static.independent.co.uk/s3fs-public/thumbnails/imag... https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/2/21/The_dress_blueblackwhitegold.jpg https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/2/21/The_dress_blu... What do you classify it as, a rabbit or a duck? Is the dress blue and black or white and gold? :) Also you do know some people literally fall to the floor and start convulsing if you show them some flashing lights right? Every system has its "glitch tokens". I mean is it really surprising that when you greatly simplify the principle that organic neurons work on, quantize it to the point where it's fast enough to use, have it learn no model of the world besides looking at photos and telling it what it's looking at, that it'd have weird corner cases? I really don't think so. If you want to compare fairly, you'd have to do so with a human that's never spoken to anyone, never seen anything but 2D pictures on a screen in front of them and hasn't been told or shown anything about the world they live in since they were born. And that's would be with the advantage of having six million years of base model training beforehand. > And that is very strong hyperbole. Well sure I guess it's mainly out of lack of care and practicality, but still even more elaborate tests like ones for say, math or physics that have you write the entire procedure don't really test if you understand the underlying principles, just that you've seen that type of problem before and can remember the equations correctly. The LLM bread and butter functionality basically.

hutzlibu 3y ago
I don't find the example right now, but you can give AIs just some pixels they would classify as dog or whatever. A human would only classify something that has the attributes of a dog as a dog. That's a difference from corner cases and unclear dress examples "If you want to compare fairly, you'd have to do so with a human that's never spoken to anyone, never seen anything but 2D pictures on a screen in front of them and hasn't been told or shown anything about the world they live in since they were born" And this is not what is happening with AIs. They get fed with data that sums up more than a single human lifespan. ", but still even more elaborate tests like ones for say, math or physics that have you write the entire procedure don't really test if you understand the underlying principles" And this is not true, except for high school tests. You certainly can test for understanding, by not giving generic problems, but where you have to apply your knowlege. And sure those were the most hated tests, as they required actual understanding and you could nvot weasel through. But they also created more work for teachers, so mosts tests were just the generic have you learned the algorithm tests. And if testing in person, you can go deep.