4 ms·

I'm not convinced human intellect isn't doing a similar thing with math when we are doing it fast. When I solve an arithmetic thing in my head I actually am not

by DirkH 3y ago

I'm not convinced human intellect isn't doing a similar thing with math when we are doing it fast. When I solve an arithmetic thing in my head I actually am not understanding or going by "the steps." I've just seen it so many times I have a kind of "sixth sense" so to speak. I.e. I'm kinda just pattern matching in the vector space of my memories. When I do this am I no longer using my intelligence? When we do math mistakes it is a form of hallucination just like for the LLM. In such instances you can ask a human to show their work and go step-by-step in which case they are less likely to "hallucinate." Do the same with an LLM and likewise you'll get a better answer as expected. In your example though it is true you're unlikely to get a LLM to converge on the correct answer. Humans also struggle to reason well to some things beyond their understanding though. LLMs can very well give their reasoning and steps and understanding for some things but not other things. Why isn't your response to this not that we just haven't taught LLMs the other things well enough yet and that we will probably get there soon enough? Would it be that surprising for GPT-5 to be able to show all of its mathematical reasoning for the question GPT-4 fails to answer now? This is all besides the point. If AI is created that outperforms humans on everything and anything by several orders of magnitude then some response along the lines of "it isn't REALLY intelligent" just sounds like either some high-falutin' semantic jostling being done by an academic divorced from real-world implications or a human drinking some serious copium wanting to still feel special for being human. I don't care how it works and that it is using processes completely different from human psychology. I care whether we can create AI in my lifetime that will outcompete me for any job I could ever hope to do. That and the totalitarian state implications of such power in the wrong hands.

toss1 3y ago
Interesting points. >>I'm not convinced human intellect isn't doing a similar thing with math when we are doing it fast. Yes, this may be somewhat similar to the LLM's method, depending on how close we want to consider long-ago forgotten acts of memorizing multiplication tables but where the lesson still 'stuck'. Maybe that's simply regurgitating pretrained closeness vectors, or maybe it's a table lookup. There's three things we need to look at: 1) good results, 2) errors or hallucinations, 3) underlying technology or methods of calculating. If we look only at results, we can easily get fooled. That said, I agree that even a non-intelligent box that still yields reliable results can be enormously useful, have massive impacts, and be massively dangerous in the wrong hands. Of course, we already have such tools in photography tools that are vastly faster & more accurate than any artist and computers that make make larger & better calculations, etc.. Looking at the errors and hallucinations, such as the arithmetic or single banana failure, we can easily see that these generative AIs fail any time the right answer would require wielding even a slightly abstract concept. They haven't got it. This is not to say they couldn't get it with more layers of some sort to extract & wield the concepts, but that's a different machine. Two months or two decades or two centuries away? Who knows? Plus, the internals of the generative AIs tell us the same thing - they are massive collections of vectors of likely associations of words or bits, and are returning the most likely set, wrangled a bit by grammatical or artistic filters. So, while results look good, both the errors and methods indicate a lack or intelligence. Also, this is the same trajectory of other "AI". It was long thought that making a world-class chess computer would achieve intelligence. Same for Go, or Jeopardy. All these were achieved, everyone was impressed, and then everyone noticed that it was just a big computation engine. I do expect that we'll get there someday, and that Bostrom's Superintelligence explosion will be a serious concern. I even thought that ChatGPT might be approaching it... but then I started using it and reading more about the internals. We're safe on that lineage, but who knows what others are working on?
- DirkH 3y ago
  I used to think this same way, especially given I have a biology background. It is indeed true if you look at the internals of chatGPT it is doing a lot of basic and dare I say dumb suboptimal things. However I find the analogy to flying compelling. It was thought to be decades days before the Wright Brother flight because of how simple, and seemingly dumb the engineering was relative to evolution's design in making a bird fly. There is a TED talk on this. It took us well over a generation later to build bots that can fly the way a bird does. That's how much longer it took us to understand biological flight. Yet by that time we had already made machines that can fly faster than any and all birds. We didn't need to mimic biology's design to get something that outclasses it. Could be the same with AI. We might be able to use engineering methods that are dumb relative to how biology sculpts intelligence, and yet still create an AI that outperforms all humans on all intelligence tasks. We may well create AGI that we end up coexisting with for over a generation before we figure out how intelligence in the biological brain works. And because we keep comparing AI currently to how biological intelligence works I am concerned the same thing will happen where a few days before it is released most people will be saying AGI is decades away. For me at least, this consideration makes "centuries away" look off and "decades away" seem far more likely... Which is in my lifetime. Yikes!
  - toss1 3y ago
    Yes, I definitely agree that it is possible that an AI could emerge/be built without any direct biological analog, and flight is a good example (and the wheel is another — enables us to go faster than any legged creature but no biological analog). The questions are whether this generation of AI is actually intelligent (seems we ~agree different degrees of "Not yet"), and whether will lead to real intelligence and how close that is. Some of this is likely how we define "intelligence". I'm thinking of it in the human+/- level AGI, with the ability to abstract thoughts, sort facts from fiction, reason, and reason about itself sufficiently to set goals. Under this, I consider chess computers, AlphaGo, Watson, current "self-driving" and indeed ChatGPT4 to not meet the criteria, although they do produce very useful output. What's your assessment of these? Now, how far away are we? Let's take the arithmetic problem I cited above. I'd bet the OpenAI team is weeks-months away from solving that by generally recognizing all math problems, abstracting them, and passing it off to the Wolfram solve plug-In (like an old subroutine). And that is a level of abstraction that would massively increase usefulness. But, how many of those abstractions must be solved before it can abstract thoughts, sort facts from fiction, reason, and reason about itself sufficiently to set goals? The generative image systems' problems may be instructive. When asked to show something with a banana, they always show bunches of bananas. This could probably be patch-fixed in weeks with more training to distinguish single/plural bananas. But, I've also seen a "woman on a boat" generating what looks at first like an attractive bikini-clad woman, until we notice that her head & torso are attached the wrong way on the buttocks. This tells us that truly overcoming these problems requires the model to have abstract concepts of all physical objects in the lexicon and understand their relationships, so we don't get legs in impossible tangles or on backwards, etc. That would seem to require an entirely different generation of AI? I agree that it does not need to be biomicry to be intelligent; that only provides possibly useful hints to useful paths forward. I also agree that the likely time frame is years-to-decades, not months nor centuries. >>engineering methods that are dumb relative to how biology sculpts intelligence, and yet still create an AI that outperforms all humans on all intelligence tasks. Yes, this is definitely possible, especially with scaling. But do you see a path for LLMs alone to get us here with massive scaling up? I'm thinking it needs Large Abstraction Models layered on top of the LLM, sort of like the cortex is layered over and modifies the limbic system, which is layered over the brainstem, etc...?

by DirkH 3y ago

toss1 3y ago

Interesting points. >>I'm not convinced human intellect isn't doing a similar thing with math when we are doing it fast. Yes, this may be somewhat similar to the LLM's method, depending on how close we want to consider long-ago forgotten acts of memorizing multiplication tables but where the lesson still 'stuck'. Maybe that's simply regurgitating pretrained closeness vectors, or maybe it's a table lookup. There's three things we need to look at: 1) good results, 2) errors or hallucinations, 3) underlying technology or methods of calculating. If we look only at results, we can easily get fooled. That said, I agree that even a non-intelligent box that still yields reliable results can be enormously useful, have massive impacts, and be massively dangerous in the wrong hands. Of course, we already have such tools in photography tools that are vastly faster & more accurate than any artist and computers that make make larger & better calculations, etc.. Looking at the errors and hallucinations, such as the arithmetic or single banana failure, we can easily see that these generative AIs fail any time the right answer would require wielding even a slightly abstract concept. They haven't got it. This is not to say they couldn't get it with more layers of some sort to extract & wield the concepts, but that's a different machine. Two months or two decades or two centuries away? Who knows? Plus, the internals of the generative AIs tell us the same thing - they are massive collections of vectors of likely associations of words or bits, and are returning the most likely set, wrangled a bit by grammatical or artistic filters. So, while results look good, both the errors and methods indicate a lack or intelligence. Also, this is the same trajectory of other "AI". It was long thought that making a world-class chess computer would achieve intelligence. Same for Go, or Jeopardy. All these were achieved, everyone was impressed, and then everyone noticed that it was just a big computation engine. I do expect that we'll get there someday, and that Bostrom's Superintelligence explosion will be a serious concern. I even thought that ChatGPT might be approaching it... but then I started using it and reading more about the internals. We're safe on that lineage, but who knows what others are working on?

DirkH 3y ago
I used to think this same way, especially given I have a biology background. It is indeed true if you look at the internals of chatGPT it is doing a lot of basic and dare I say dumb suboptimal things. However I find the analogy to flying compelling. It was thought to be decades days before the Wright Brother flight because of how simple, and seemingly dumb the engineering was relative to evolution's design in making a bird fly. There is a TED talk on this. It took us well over a generation later to build bots that can fly the way a bird does. That's how much longer it took us to understand biological flight. Yet by that time we had already made machines that can fly faster than any and all birds. We didn't need to mimic biology's design to get something that outclasses it. Could be the same with AI. We might be able to use engineering methods that are dumb relative to how biology sculpts intelligence, and yet still create an AI that outperforms all humans on all intelligence tasks. We may well create AGI that we end up coexisting with for over a generation before we figure out how intelligence in the biological brain works. And because we keep comparing AI currently to how biological intelligence works I am concerned the same thing will happen where a few days before it is released most people will be saying AGI is decades away. For me at least, this consideration makes "centuries away" look off and "decades away" seem far more likely... Which is in my lifetime. Yikes!
- toss1 3y ago
  Yes, I definitely agree that it is possible that an AI could emerge/be built without any direct biological analog, and flight is a good example (and the wheel is another — enables us to go faster than any legged creature but no biological analog). The questions are whether this generation of AI is actually intelligent (seems we ~agree different degrees of "Not yet"), and whether will lead to real intelligence and how close that is. Some of this is likely how we define "intelligence". I'm thinking of it in the human+/- level AGI, with the ability to abstract thoughts, sort facts from fiction, reason, and reason about itself sufficiently to set goals. Under this, I consider chess computers, AlphaGo, Watson, current "self-driving" and indeed ChatGPT4 to not meet the criteria, although they do produce very useful output. What's your assessment of these? Now, how far away are we? Let's take the arithmetic problem I cited above. I'd bet the OpenAI team is weeks-months away from solving that by generally recognizing all math problems, abstracting them, and passing it off to the Wolfram solve plug-In (like an old subroutine). And that is a level of abstraction that would massively increase usefulness. But, how many of those abstractions must be solved before it can abstract thoughts, sort facts from fiction, reason, and reason about itself sufficiently to set goals? The generative image systems' problems may be instructive. When asked to show something with a banana, they always show bunches of bananas. This could probably be patch-fixed in weeks with more training to distinguish single/plural bananas. But, I've also seen a "woman on a boat" generating what looks at first like an attractive bikini-clad woman, until we notice that her head & torso are attached the wrong way on the buttocks. This tells us that truly overcoming these problems requires the model to have abstract concepts of all physical objects in the lexicon and understand their relationships, so we don't get legs in impossible tangles or on backwards, etc. That would seem to require an entirely different generation of AI? I agree that it does not need to be biomicry to be intelligent; that only provides possibly useful hints to useful paths forward. I also agree that the likely time frame is years-to-decades, not months nor centuries. >>engineering methods that are dumb relative to how biology sculpts intelligence, and yet still create an AI that outperforms all humans on all intelligence tasks. Yes, this is definitely possible, especially with scaling. But do you see a path for LLMs alone to get us here with massive scaling up? I'm thinking it needs Large Abstraction Models layered on top of the LLM, sort of like the cortex is layered over and modifies the limbic system, which is layered over the brainstem, etc...?