4 ms·

> The answer to "What are LLMs but humans with extreme amnesia and no central coherence?" is that they are not like humans at all, and only resemble them superf

> The answer to "What are LLMs but humans with extreme amnesia and no central coherence?" is that they are not like humans at all, and only resemble them superficially. Is there any chance at all that we humans are are also just predicting the next word in the sentence? That the "voice in your head" that so many people report having is itself some kind of LLM that is, to some extent, driving their reasoning?

Jensson 3y ago
> Is there any chance at all that we humans are are also just predicting the next word in the sentence No, humans live in a world and use their intelligence to manipulate the world. When we generate word sequence we usually generate those to communicate information about the world, not to try to parrot what others have said. Humans can use their intelligence to parrot what others say, many do, but we know for sure it is not all humans do.
- kdmccormick 3y ago
  I fail to see how this makes us different from LLMs. LLMs are a bunch of computation running on silicon in order to predict the next word, and out of that all sorts of behavior arises, including intelligence, insigt,creativity, humor, and confabluation. Human brains are a bunch of computation running on carbon in order to <<X>>, and out of that all sorts of behavior arises, including intelligence, insigt,creativity, humor, and confabluation. We don't really know what <<X>> is. Why couldn't <<X>> be prediction as well?
- legutierr 3y ago
  This seems like circular reasoning to me. "Human's don't just parrot what other people say, therefore we must be doing something more than what LLMs do, because an LLM only parrots the words that it is trained on. But an LLM is not truly intelligent because it is not doing what humans are doing—and because the LLM is not intelligent, all it is doing is parroting the training data." Where in this line of reasoning is it proved that the mechanisms are different? What if, instead, the conscious intelligence that differentiates humans from other animals is an emergent quality of language learning, specifically? Isn't there evidence that children that don't have access to language—deaf children who are not taught sign language, or feral children, or seriously neglected children—often cannot reason before they are taught language, and suffer from long-term cognitive impairment for having lacked language during their early development? Wouldn't this point to a fundamental linkage between language and human intelligence?
  - Jensson 3y ago
    > What if, instead, the conscious intelligence that differentiates humans from other animals is an emergent quality of language learning, specifically Sure, you can argue that you have solved the human exclusive part of intelligence, that is a possibility. But we have not yet solved the monkey part of intelligence, the part that all mammals possess that lets them act intelligently in this world. Without such animal intelligence I believe it is impossible for the model to not make really stupid mistakes no human would make, because it lacks the intuitive understanding of the world all animals has. I don't think training on text will ever produce that level of understanding, no matter how hard you try, text just isn't the right medium to build an intuitive understanding of reality like a dog has.
  - lxgr 3y ago
    At least I used to think that, but LLMs are basically a very unexpected (to me, at least) counterexample to that theory: Formulating plausible sounding sentences seems to be possible without having a much deeper world model. > What if, instead, the conscious intelligence that differentiates humans from other animals is an emergent quality of language learning, specifically? There’s various linguistic theses claiming similar things (“human minds are wired for language”, i.e. Chomsky’s universal grammar, and conversely “language shapes general cognition”, i.e. Sapir-Whorf). At least in the light of LLMs (if not long before), I think neither are actually still serious possibilities/useful models of the relationship between language and cognition.
- p-e-w 3y ago
  > When we generate word sequence we usually generate those to communicate information about the world, not to try to parrot what others have said. What is the evidence supporting that claim? I grant you that it feels that way to humans when they speak, but that doesn't prove anything.
  - Jensson 3y ago
    If your mom says "there is milk in the fridge", do you think she believes there is milk in the fridge and wants you to know that, or do you think she just parrots something she heard about milk and fridges on the radio or somewhere with no intent or basis in reality? Not sure what your argument is really.
    - diogenes4 3y ago
      I have no clue what you're talking about, but there's fundamentally no evidence our thoughts are the decisive events leading to behavior rather than, say, a rationalization of said behavior. You're too bold in your modeling of human perception.
      - Jensson 3y ago
        You seem to think we are talking about sentience, but this is a discussion about intelligence. Don't confuse the two.
        diogenes4 3y ago
        How are you defining intelligence as distinct from sentience? At first blush such a distinction has no utility.
        Jensson 3y ago
        If you don't make that distinction then your statement doesn't make sense "there's fundamentally no evidence our thoughts are the decisive events leading to behavior". You started making this separation here, not me, I just talk about intelligence. If you thought they were the same thing you wouldn't say things like that.
- diogenes4 3y ago
  > No, humans live in a world and use their intelligence to manipulate the world. An extremely bold claim! good luck demonstrating it.
  - Jensson 3y ago
    That claim is the basis to basically all other claims, it is fundamental to such a degree that questioning is in the realms of philosophy and not science. If it is false then just about everything humanity believes and knows is false.
    - diogenes4 3y ago
      I'm very curious how you model human knowledge such that it's dependent on free will.
      - Jensson 3y ago
        Why would it depend on free will?
        diogenes4 3y ago
        I have difficulty interpreting your comment in any other way than as a commentary on free will. What is the meaning of intelligence otherwise?
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

Jensson 3y ago

> Is there any chance at all that we humans are are also just predicting the next word in the sentence No, humans live in a world and use their intelligence to manipulate the world. When we generate word sequence we usually generate those to communicate information about the world, not to try to parrot what others have said. Humans can use their intelligence to parrot what others say, many do, but we know for sure it is not all humans do.

kdmccormick 3y ago
I fail to see how this makes us different from LLMs. LLMs are a bunch of computation running on silicon in order to predict the next word, and out of that all sorts of behavior arises, including intelligence, insigt,creativity, humor, and confabluation. Human brains are a bunch of computation running on carbon in order to <<X>>, and out of that all sorts of behavior arises, including intelligence, insigt,creativity, humor, and confabluation. We don't really know what <<X>> is. Why couldn't <<X>> be prediction as well?
legutierr 3y ago
This seems like circular reasoning to me. "Human's don't just parrot what other people say, therefore we must be doing something more than what LLMs do, because an LLM only parrots the words that it is trained on. But an LLM is not truly intelligent because it is not doing what humans are doing—and because the LLM is not intelligent, all it is doing is parroting the training data." Where in this line of reasoning is it proved that the mechanisms are different? What if, instead, the conscious intelligence that differentiates humans from other animals is an emergent quality of language learning, specifically? Isn't there evidence that children that don't have access to language—deaf children who are not taught sign language, or feral children, or seriously neglected children—often cannot reason before they are taught language, and suffer from long-term cognitive impairment for having lacked language during their early development? Wouldn't this point to a fundamental linkage between language and human intelligence?
- Jensson 3y ago
  > What if, instead, the conscious intelligence that differentiates humans from other animals is an emergent quality of language learning, specifically Sure, you can argue that you have solved the human exclusive part of intelligence, that is a possibility. But we have not yet solved the monkey part of intelligence, the part that all mammals possess that lets them act intelligently in this world. Without such animal intelligence I believe it is impossible for the model to not make really stupid mistakes no human would make, because it lacks the intuitive understanding of the world all animals has. I don't think training on text will ever produce that level of understanding, no matter how hard you try, text just isn't the right medium to build an intuitive understanding of reality like a dog has.
- lxgr 3y ago
  At least I used to think that, but LLMs are basically a very unexpected (to me, at least) counterexample to that theory: Formulating plausible sounding sentences seems to be possible without having a much deeper world model. > What if, instead, the conscious intelligence that differentiates humans from other animals is an emergent quality of language learning, specifically? There’s various linguistic theses claiming similar things (“human minds are wired for language”, i.e. Chomsky’s universal grammar, and conversely “language shapes general cognition”, i.e. Sapir-Whorf). At least in the light of LLMs (if not long before), I think neither are actually still serious possibilities/useful models of the relationship between language and cognition.
p-e-w 3y ago
> When we generate word sequence we usually generate those to communicate information about the world, not to try to parrot what others have said. What is the evidence supporting that claim? I grant you that it feels that way to humans when they speak, but that doesn't prove anything.
- Jensson 3y ago
  If your mom says "there is milk in the fridge", do you think she believes there is milk in the fridge and wants you to know that, or do you think she just parrots something she heard about milk and fridges on the radio or somewhere with no intent or basis in reality? Not sure what your argument is really.
  - diogenes4 3y ago
    I have no clue what you're talking about, but there's fundamentally no evidence our thoughts are the decisive events leading to behavior rather than, say, a rationalization of said behavior. You're too bold in your modeling of human perception.
    - Jensson 3y ago
      You seem to think we are talking about sentience, but this is a discussion about intelligence. Don't confuse the two.
      - diogenes4 3y ago
        How are you defining intelligence as distinct from sentience? At first blush such a distinction has no utility.
        Jensson 3y ago
        If you don't make that distinction then your statement doesn't make sense "there's fundamentally no evidence our thoughts are the decisive events leading to behavior". You started making this separation here, not me, I just talk about intelligence. If you thought they were the same thing you wouldn't say things like that.
diogenes4 3y ago
> No, humans live in a world and use their intelligence to manipulate the world. An extremely bold claim! good luck demonstrating it.
- Jensson 3y ago
  That claim is the basis to basically all other claims, it is fundamental to such a degree that questioning is in the realms of philosophy and not science. If it is false then just about everything humanity believes and knows is false.
  - diogenes4 3y ago
    I'm very curious how you model human knowledge such that it's dependent on free will.
    - Jensson 3y ago
      Why would it depend on free will?
      - diogenes4 3y ago
        I have difficulty interpreting your comment in any other way than as a commentary on free will. What is the meaning of intelligence otherwise?

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]