3 ms·

Being able to mix what you have seen before isn't an accurate representation of any popular model for human intelligence to my knowledge. It is akin to a backr

Being able to mix what you have seen before isn't an accurate representation of any popular model for human intelligence to my knowledge. It is akin to a backronym "well that sounds similar so is the same" while ignoring the real differences.

ta8645 3y ago
> Being able to mix what you have seen before But humans clearly do that. It's not all we do, but we clearly do that. And given the impressive results that LLMs produce, my guess is it or something like it, will play a significant role in the AGI of the future.
- XorNot 3y ago
  I'd say possibly it is all we do, we just have a lot more hidden inputs. i.e. we're all dealing with inputs from our physical bodies now, and can't not be. There's a whole bit of social advice about dealing with people which is "remember you may be encountering someone on the worst day of their life" (the idea being, 95+% of the time you shouldn't escalate, particularly with strangers). What I do now, and how I think about things is being affected in ways I know are directly related to blood sugar, fatigue, pain (i.e. my legs are a little uncomfortable in a way yours aren't, but I moved them just now so they feel better - all unique inputs to me, all always there). But the other problem with the notion is people thinking of the knowledge bounds these systems derive as being "limits" - they're not. The whole point of machine learning is they're not interpolating between known datapoints, but rather extracting the rules which fit those data points. So stay between the points, and sure - it's some type of complex interpolation of seen inputs. But you don't have to stay between those datapoints - you can move of either end and extrapolate new ones entirely.
- Guvante 3y ago
  I would say LLM is at best a precursor for a memory system. But saying we almost have AGI because we have a template for HDDs isn't exactly representative IMHO.
lern_too_spel 3y ago
Whether the model for human intelligence is popular or not isn't really relevant. We just care about accuracy. Predicting what comes next (including what will happen if I take some action) is very close to all we do. Models trained on text happen to do surprisingly well because humans often represent predictions of what will come next in words, but it remains to be seen if enough of what it takes to think at a human level is available as text in order to train a human level intelligence purely from text.
- Guvante 3y ago
  Why doesn't passing the Turing Test mean you are sentient is an open question but most agree that it is obvious there is a gap here. "Predicting text" is just a falacy born from applying function logic to humans. "Well if I simplify the problem to a text window obviously they are the same" as if simplifying doesn't change anything. The Chinese Room is a good example if you want deeper thought into the distinction between acting and being.
  - ta8645 3y ago
    > The Chinese Room is a good example if you want deeper thought into the distinction between acting and being. It's not a deeper thought at all. It's an appeal to the emotion of humans who want to believe that what we do in our heads somehow produces "understanding", while the procedural steps inside a computer doesn't. But to my mind, it doesn't give a convincing reason for this assertion. You can't prove that what we're doing in our heads, isn't functionally equivalent to what is going on inside some future AGI. There's no such test, just hubris. As far as the Turing test goes, if you can't tell the difference between a computer and a human, what is the point of even arguing that humans still hold some claim to being the only one in the fight that actually "understand"?
    - Guvante 3y ago
      The Chinese room is not saying humans are smart. It is showing the difference between knowledge and action. Understanding a language is distinct from responding to language prompts. Unless you are claiming LLM is AGI which is a laughable proposition the fact that people say LLM isn't intelligent isn't impactful on whether AGI isn't intelligent. There isn't disagreement (outside extremists) that AGI doesn't exist yet. The only disagreement is "when do we know it does". Not having a test isn't hubris. It instead shows it is a fundamentally hard question. What does intelligence mean?

ta8645 3y ago

> Being able to mix what you have seen before But humans clearly do that. It's not all we do, but we clearly do that. And given the impressive results that LLMs produce, my guess is it or something like it, will play a significant role in the AGI of the future.

XorNot 3y ago
I'd say possibly it is all we do, we just have a lot more hidden inputs. i.e. we're all dealing with inputs from our physical bodies now, and can't not be. There's a whole bit of social advice about dealing with people which is "remember you may be encountering someone on the worst day of their life" (the idea being, 95+% of the time you shouldn't escalate, particularly with strangers). What I do now, and how I think about things is being affected in ways I know are directly related to blood sugar, fatigue, pain (i.e. my legs are a little uncomfortable in a way yours aren't, but I moved them just now so they feel better - all unique inputs to me, all always there). But the other problem with the notion is people thinking of the knowledge bounds these systems derive as being "limits" - they're not. The whole point of machine learning is they're not interpolating between known datapoints, but rather extracting the rules which fit those data points. So stay between the points, and sure - it's some type of complex interpolation of seen inputs. But you don't have to stay between those datapoints - you can move of either end and extrapolate new ones entirely.
Guvante 3y ago
I would say LLM is at best a precursor for a memory system. But saying we almost have AGI because we have a template for HDDs isn't exactly representative IMHO.

lern_too_spel 3y ago

Whether the model for human intelligence is popular or not isn't really relevant. We just care about accuracy. Predicting what comes next (including what will happen if I take some action) is very close to all we do. Models trained on text happen to do surprisingly well because humans often represent predictions of what will come next in words, but it remains to be seen if enough of what it takes to think at a human level is available as text in order to train a human level intelligence purely from text.

Guvante 3y ago
Why doesn't passing the Turing Test mean you are sentient is an open question but most agree that it is obvious there is a gap here. "Predicting text" is just a falacy born from applying function logic to humans. "Well if I simplify the problem to a text window obviously they are the same" as if simplifying doesn't change anything. The Chinese Room is a good example if you want deeper thought into the distinction between acting and being.
- ta8645 3y ago
  > The Chinese Room is a good example if you want deeper thought into the distinction between acting and being. It's not a deeper thought at all. It's an appeal to the emotion of humans who want to believe that what we do in our heads somehow produces "understanding", while the procedural steps inside a computer doesn't. But to my mind, it doesn't give a convincing reason for this assertion. You can't prove that what we're doing in our heads, isn't functionally equivalent to what is going on inside some future AGI. There's no such test, just hubris. As far as the Turing test goes, if you can't tell the difference between a computer and a human, what is the point of even arguing that humans still hold some claim to being the only one in the fight that actually "understand"?
  - Guvante 3y ago
    The Chinese room is not saying humans are smart. It is showing the difference between knowledge and action. Understanding a language is distinct from responding to language prompts. Unless you are claiming LLM is AGI which is a laughable proposition the fact that people say LLM isn't intelligent isn't impactful on whether AGI isn't intelligent. There isn't disagreement (outside extremists) that AGI doesn't exist yet. The only disagreement is "when do we know it does". Not having a test isn't hubris. It instead shows it is a fundamentally hard question. What does intelligence mean?