5 ms·

I think LLMs are presenting some uncomfortable philosophical questions for people about how our own brains work and admitting that there is any kind of "intelli

I think LLMs are presenting some uncomfortable philosophical questions for people about how our own brains work and admitting that there is any kind of "intelligence" (even if very basic) in an LLM is an admission that our own brains may work in a similar manner.

YeGoblynQueenne 3y ago
For me, one of the most interesting things that have come out of LLMs is the confirmation that humans are very bad at reasoning and, consequently, its' a very bad idea to try and make machines that "think like humans", because that way we'll only make machines with none of the advantages of machines and all the disadvantages of computers. For instance -I'm not trying to be mean and I'm certainly not blaming you in particular, because I've seen this very often- but the reasoning that because LLMs can generate language, and humans can generate language not only LLMs are somehow like humans but also humans are like LLMs is not sound. For example, walls have ears, cats have ears, therefore walls are like cats and cats are like walls. That doesn't work because walls' ears are not like cats' ears and even if they were, that still wouldn't make walls cats and cats walls, it would just make them both entities with ears.
- famouswaffles 3y ago
  >because that way we'll only make machines with none of the advantages of machines and all the disadvantages of computers. There is no evidence, basically none whatsoever that general "perfect logical reasoning" is a thing that actually exists in the real world. None. No animal we've observed does it. Humans certainly don't do it. The only realm this idea actually works is Fiction. and this was not like for a lack of trying. Some of the greatest minds worked on this for decades and some people still don't seem to get it. Logic doesn't scale. They break at real world relationships. Logic systems are that guy in the stands yelling that he could've made the shot, while he's not even on the field.
  - YeezyMode 3y ago
    Would you say that this in itself is due to how incomplete human reasoning is in the first place? That as a result, our ideas of logic and what perfect logic looks like are bound to fail? Or are you saying that the purest mathematical representation of logic cannot scale to a point where they can model and predict real world relationships successfully?
    - famouswaffles 3y ago
      The second. Mathematical logic thrives on precision, clear definitions, and unambiguous axioms, but real-world systems are often marked by vagueness, uncertainty, and dynamic change. Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorems also demonstrates that in any sufficiently powerful mathematical system, there are true statements that cannot be proven within the system. This implies that no matter how refined a logical system you devise, it will invariably be incomplete or inconsistent when grappling with real-world phenomena.
      - deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
      - YeGoblynQueenne 3y ago
        Gödel didn't say anything about real world phenomena. He was talking about formal languages and mathematics.
        famouswaffles 3y ago
        Of course. But if you truly cannot model every true statement in any formally devised system, then you are by definition going to have to reject valid rules that your logic cannot verify if you intend your system to perfectly logical.
        YeGoblynQueenne 3y ago
        I believe that's right but only in a deductive setting, and as long as there's a requirement for soundness. Inductive and abductive logical inference are not sound and they are very useful for real-world decision-making. But that is a developing field and there are still many unknowns there.
- andrewguenther 3y ago
  No offense taken. I tried to be clear in my phrasing that I don't personally subscribe to the "LLMs are just like us" mentality. Just making an observation as to why people have such visceral reactions to any implication that they might be.
- corethree 3y ago
  >-I'm not trying to be mean and I'm certainly not blaming you in particular, because I've seen this very often- but the reasoning that because LLMs can generate language, and humans can generate language not only LLMs are somehow like humans but also humans are like LLMs is not sound. Nah. Nobody personifies LLMs like this. What you're laying out here is a fundamental mistake that you'd have to be extremely stupid to make. I think barely anyone is making this mistake to even qualify mentioning it. Seriously who here things that LLMs are anything like humans? That is not the claim. The claim is that LLMs understand you. Intelligence and understanding are clearly orthogonal to "human-like"
corethree 3y ago
This. I think this is the reason why so many people are in denial. Is All of intelligence simply trying to find the best fit curve in an n-dimensional scatter plot of data points?

YeGoblynQueenne 3y ago

For me, one of the most interesting things that have come out of LLMs is the confirmation that humans are very bad at reasoning and, consequently, its' a very bad idea to try and make machines that "think like humans", because that way we'll only make machines with none of the advantages of machines and all the disadvantages of computers. For instance -I'm not trying to be mean and I'm certainly not blaming you in particular, because I've seen this very often- but the reasoning that because LLMs can generate language, and humans can generate language not only LLMs are somehow like humans but also humans are like LLMs is not sound. For example, walls have ears, cats have ears, therefore walls are like cats and cats are like walls. That doesn't work because walls' ears are not like cats' ears and even if they were, that still wouldn't make walls cats and cats walls, it would just make them both entities with ears.

famouswaffles 3y ago
>because that way we'll only make machines with none of the advantages of machines and all the disadvantages of computers. There is no evidence, basically none whatsoever that general "perfect logical reasoning" is a thing that actually exists in the real world. None. No animal we've observed does it. Humans certainly don't do it. The only realm this idea actually works is Fiction. and this was not like for a lack of trying. Some of the greatest minds worked on this for decades and some people still don't seem to get it. Logic doesn't scale. They break at real world relationships. Logic systems are that guy in the stands yelling that he could've made the shot, while he's not even on the field.
- YeezyMode 3y ago
  Would you say that this in itself is due to how incomplete human reasoning is in the first place? That as a result, our ideas of logic and what perfect logic looks like are bound to fail? Or are you saying that the purest mathematical representation of logic cannot scale to a point where they can model and predict real world relationships successfully?
  - famouswaffles 3y ago
    The second. Mathematical logic thrives on precision, clear definitions, and unambiguous axioms, but real-world systems are often marked by vagueness, uncertainty, and dynamic change. Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorems also demonstrates that in any sufficiently powerful mathematical system, there are true statements that cannot be proven within the system. This implies that no matter how refined a logical system you devise, it will invariably be incomplete or inconsistent when grappling with real-world phenomena.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    - YeGoblynQueenne 3y ago
      Gödel didn't say anything about real world phenomena. He was talking about formal languages and mathematics.
      - famouswaffles 3y ago
        Of course. But if you truly cannot model every true statement in any formally devised system, then you are by definition going to have to reject valid rules that your logic cannot verify if you intend your system to perfectly logical.
        YeGoblynQueenne 3y ago
        I believe that's right but only in a deductive setting, and as long as there's a requirement for soundness. Inductive and abductive logical inference are not sound and they are very useful for real-world decision-making. But that is a developing field and there are still many unknowns there.
andrewguenther 3y ago
No offense taken. I tried to be clear in my phrasing that I don't personally subscribe to the "LLMs are just like us" mentality. Just making an observation as to why people have such visceral reactions to any implication that they might be.
corethree 3y ago
>-I'm not trying to be mean and I'm certainly not blaming you in particular, because I've seen this very often- but the reasoning that because LLMs can generate language, and humans can generate language not only LLMs are somehow like humans but also humans are like LLMs is not sound. Nah. Nobody personifies LLMs like this. What you're laying out here is a fundamental mistake that you'd have to be extremely stupid to make. I think barely anyone is making this mistake to even qualify mentioning it. Seriously who here things that LLMs are anything like humans? That is not the claim. The claim is that LLMs understand you. Intelligence and understanding are clearly orthogonal to "human-like"

corethree 3y ago

This. I think this is the reason why so many people are in denial. Is All of intelligence simply trying to find the best fit curve in an n-dimensional scatter plot of data points?