4 ms·

"Large Language models understand" could be worthy of 100s of other papers by itself. What led to such a claim in the article?

famouswaffles 3y ago
Results matter not vague and useless philosophical ramblings. If the model demonstrates understanding any way you evaluate it then it understands. Trying to cook up any other distinction is meaningless and doesn't make a lot of sense. Is a bird fake flying with respect to a bee ? Is a plane fake plying with respect to a bird ? No, they're all flying.
- lxgr 3y ago
  Understanding something and being able to make true or even helpful statements about something are not the same thing. Otherwise, you could argue that a "Caution: Wet Paint" sign understands that people don't like getting their clothes stained.
  - famouswaffles 3y ago
    We distinguish things by probing properties because obviously if something is different enough to be distinguished, it will show itself in results. If you want to see if that piece of shiny looking yellow metal is really gold and not some counterfeit, then amongst other possible probes, you pour some hydrochloric acid on it and see how it reacts. If it's virtually unchanged then it's the real deal. If you perform all the possible gold probes on this metal and it passes all of them, if you still insist it isn't gold then you're just a crazy nut who's lost touch with reality. Your definition of "real gold" no longer holds any meaning. Similarly we have probes for understanding different things (which are mind you biased to us). If something passes those tests, it understands. It's very simple. a "caution: wet paint" sign would not be pass any understanding tests i know of so it does not understand.
    - lxgr 3y ago
      Well, my definition of "understanding" includes, among other things, the capability to have a large and robust mental model of a specific concept, not just access to all human writing about it and the capability to rephrase and summarize that. Of course that's a spectrum, and sometimes the distinction is not all that important. Sometimes the summary is exactly what helps somebody out in a given moment. Even a human can give you good advice without understanding what they are talking about!
      - famouswaffles 3y ago
        Right... And you think language models can't pass this sort of test ? Because they clearly can. And by the way, performance improvement after empathetic words is about the most robust mental model of emotion and empathy you can expect. That doesn't have anything to do with rephrasing or summarizing anything.
        lxgr 3y ago
        Are you arguing that LLMs experience emotions and are capable of empathy?
        famouswaffles 3y ago
        They are capable of empathy yes because any way we know how to demonstrate empathy shows this. That's the standard we apply for people so that's the standard for LLMs as well. You keep saying, "being able to talk about doesn't mean" but that's pointless when that's not the only understanding tests people employ. The paper i linked shows empathy understanding and has nothing to do with talking about empathy
        lxgr 3y ago
        By that definition, a sociopath has empathy because they are able to demonstrate behavior we associate with having empathy. The two are not the same. In many cases, internal states don't matter (e.g. I don't care if I get a well-written summary of an article by a domain expert or just a good copywriter, as long as the meaning is preserved accurately enough), but I'd argue that we can't meaningfully talk about empathy without considering internal states.
  - koonsolo 3y ago
    Let's see if ChatGPT understands: User What's the use of a "Caution: Wet Paint" sign? ChatGPT A "Caution: Wet Paint" sign serves several purposes: Protection for the Public: It warns people so they don't accidentally touch the wet paint, which can ruin their clothes, belongings, or skin. Protection for the Work: It helps prevent smudging, smearing, or otherwise damaging the freshly applied paint, ensuring the job looks clean and professional once it's dry. Liability: By alerting people about the wet paint, property owners or contractors can reduce the risk of potential complaints or legal issues if someone's property were to get damaged. Guidance: The sign can direct individuals to alternative routes or areas if an area is blocked off for painting. Overall, it's a simple yet effective way to communicate a temporary condition that people need to be aware of. Yep, it understands it even better than me.
    - lxgr 3y ago
      Yes, and I still consider that a poor experimental setup to demonstrate understanding, because by that definition, Wikipedia also "understands" photosynthesis and the cold war. My point is that maybe "understanding" isn't all that useful a category for intelligence and/or LLMs.
      - koonsolo 3y ago
        Reasoning is deriving new information from information you already know. On Wikipedia I can only see what's already there. ChatGPT is able to derive from things it already knows, or in that sense, reason about it. For example, I can't ask wikipedia which role Brittney Spears would be suited for in the Star Wars triology. I could reason about it and come up with my own solution, and so can ChatGPT.
        lxgr 3y ago
        Yes, but that does not mean that LLMs "understand" showbiz or screenwriting. Being able to talk about a topic and even coming across as knowledgeable and helpful is not the same thing as actually understanding something. This isn't limited to LLMs, of course.

famouswaffles 3y ago

Results matter not vague and useless philosophical ramblings. If the model demonstrates understanding any way you evaluate it then it understands. Trying to cook up any other distinction is meaningless and doesn't make a lot of sense. Is a bird fake flying with respect to a bee ? Is a plane fake plying with respect to a bird ? No, they're all flying.

lxgr 3y ago
Understanding something and being able to make true or even helpful statements about something are not the same thing. Otherwise, you could argue that a "Caution: Wet Paint" sign understands that people don't like getting their clothes stained.
- famouswaffles 3y ago
  We distinguish things by probing properties because obviously if something is different enough to be distinguished, it will show itself in results. If you want to see if that piece of shiny looking yellow metal is really gold and not some counterfeit, then amongst other possible probes, you pour some hydrochloric acid on it and see how it reacts. If it's virtually unchanged then it's the real deal. If you perform all the possible gold probes on this metal and it passes all of them, if you still insist it isn't gold then you're just a crazy nut who's lost touch with reality. Your definition of "real gold" no longer holds any meaning. Similarly we have probes for understanding different things (which are mind you biased to us). If something passes those tests, it understands. It's very simple. a "caution: wet paint" sign would not be pass any understanding tests i know of so it does not understand.
  - lxgr 3y ago
    Well, my definition of "understanding" includes, among other things, the capability to have a large and robust mental model of a specific concept, not just access to all human writing about it and the capability to rephrase and summarize that. Of course that's a spectrum, and sometimes the distinction is not all that important. Sometimes the summary is exactly what helps somebody out in a given moment. Even a human can give you good advice without understanding what they are talking about!
    - famouswaffles 3y ago
      Right... And you think language models can't pass this sort of test ? Because they clearly can. And by the way, performance improvement after empathetic words is about the most robust mental model of emotion and empathy you can expect. That doesn't have anything to do with rephrasing or summarizing anything.
      - lxgr 3y ago
        Are you arguing that LLMs experience emotions and are capable of empathy?
        famouswaffles 3y ago
        They are capable of empathy yes because any way we know how to demonstrate empathy shows this. That's the standard we apply for people so that's the standard for LLMs as well. You keep saying, "being able to talk about doesn't mean" but that's pointless when that's not the only understanding tests people employ. The paper i linked shows empathy understanding and has nothing to do with talking about empathy
        lxgr 3y ago
        By that definition, a sociopath has empathy because they are able to demonstrate behavior we associate with having empathy. The two are not the same. In many cases, internal states don't matter (e.g. I don't care if I get a well-written summary of an article by a domain expert or just a good copywriter, as long as the meaning is preserved accurately enough), but I'd argue that we can't meaningfully talk about empathy without considering internal states.
- koonsolo 3y ago
  Let's see if ChatGPT understands: User What's the use of a "Caution: Wet Paint" sign? ChatGPT A "Caution: Wet Paint" sign serves several purposes: Protection for the Public: It warns people so they don't accidentally touch the wet paint, which can ruin their clothes, belongings, or skin. Protection for the Work: It helps prevent smudging, smearing, or otherwise damaging the freshly applied paint, ensuring the job looks clean and professional once it's dry. Liability: By alerting people about the wet paint, property owners or contractors can reduce the risk of potential complaints or legal issues if someone's property were to get damaged. Guidance: The sign can direct individuals to alternative routes or areas if an area is blocked off for painting. Overall, it's a simple yet effective way to communicate a temporary condition that people need to be aware of. Yep, it understands it even better than me.
  - lxgr 3y ago
    Yes, and I still consider that a poor experimental setup to demonstrate understanding, because by that definition, Wikipedia also "understands" photosynthesis and the cold war. My point is that maybe "understanding" isn't all that useful a category for intelligence and/or LLMs.
    - koonsolo 3y ago
      Reasoning is deriving new information from information you already know. On Wikipedia I can only see what's already there. ChatGPT is able to derive from things it already knows, or in that sense, reason about it. For example, I can't ask wikipedia which role Brittney Spears would be suited for in the Star Wars triology. I could reason about it and come up with my own solution, and so can ChatGPT.
      - lxgr 3y ago
        Yes, but that does not mean that LLMs "understand" showbiz or screenwriting. Being able to talk about a topic and even coming across as knowledgeable and helpful is not the same thing as actually understanding something. This isn't limited to LLMs, of course.