12 ms·
Aren't your sentences probabilistically based on the existing corpus of text within your mind?
by pyinstallwoes 3y ago
Aren't your sentences probabilistically based on the existing corpus of text within your mind?
- 15457345234 3y agoNo? If that's how sentence forming worked it would be impossible to count backwards, or count at all for that matter.
- pyinstallwoes 3y agoWhy? Numbers have directionality relative to the species.
- stavros 3y agoMe: Count backwards from ten GPT-4: 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1 Me: Count backwards from a million to 999990 GPT-4: 1,000,000, 999,999, 999,998, 999,997, 999,996, 999,995, 999,994, 999,993, 999,992, 999,991, 999,990 I don't know about that.
- 15457345234 3y agoI don't know how that connects in any way to what I and the commenter preceding me wrote.
- stavros 3y agoYou said that sentences aren't formed by probability from an existing corpus, as that method can't count backwards. GPT-4, a system based on such a method, can count backwards, thus disproving your claim.
- woodruffw 3y agoI’m pretty sure the person you’re responding to is saying that counting is a formal operation with a formal definition, and that when GPT “counts” it isn’t doing that formal operation. The fact that it can semi-reliably emit ordered sequences isn’t counterevidence, for the same reason that memorizing the order of 0 to 100 isn’t evidence of an understanding of the inductive structure of counting.
- jacquesm 3y agoHow long a sequence of numbers (or how many sequences of different kinds of numbers) would it take to convince someone that it does do a formal operation? Kids don't do a 'formal operation' when they count from 1 to 10, they just recite a list they've memorized. If they can do it from 1 to 1,000,000 you can be fairly sure it is no longer a memorized list.
- 15457345234 3y ago> thus disproving your claim Is there an alternative conclusion which you could reach here?
- smohare 3y ago[dead]
- joshuahedlund 3y agoNot completely. If you trained me on a thousand bad arguments for why the earth is flat and one really good debunking, I predict I would reason myself to the correct conclusion. I predict ChatGTP would not.
- CamperBob2 3y agoThat seems like a compelling argument at first, but the churches are full of intelligent people who will fail the same test because of childhood indoctrination. They have been conditioned not to care about what's objectively true, while the LLM simply doesn't possess a concept of objective truth in the first place. I suspect it will be easier for ML researchers to fix that problem in their software models than it would be for psychologists to fix it in humans.
- pyinstallwoes 3y agoObjective truth doesn’t exist. Any system which defines truth can only point to objects within that systems language space.
- CamperBob2 3y agoWe don't live in a "language space." We live in a material world where objective truth -- the kind that remains after you stop believing in it -- indisputably exists.
- jacquesm 3y agoUtter bollocks. See how easy it was to refute your argument within that systems language space?