5 ms·

No more than I need to understand every dynamic of walking to know that my goldfish doesn’t do it. For a lot of us, LLM behavior and thinking are so plainly an

No more than I need to understand every dynamic of walking to know that my goldfish doesn’t do it. For a lot of us, LLM behavior and thinking are so plainly and obviously dissimilar that the endless comparisons look somewhere between naive or manipulative, depending on who’s making them.

stavros 3y ago
The difference is that your goldfish doesn't look like it's walking. I'm sure my door doesn't think. I'm not sure the LLM doesn't.
- antisthenes 3y ago
  > I'm not sure the LLM doesn't. If you turn off the power to the computer hosting the LLM, you can also be sure it doesn't think.
digging 3y ago
> For a lot of us, LLM behavior and thinking are so plainly and obviously dissimilar But what's obvious to you is not obvious to everyone. Even though you don't have to mathematically prove a goldfish doesn't walk for me to believe you, that's because we can both agree on a very good definition of walking. If it came down to it, I am sure we could sit down with pen an paper and some textbooks and agree upon a physical definition as robust as any. We're just skipping that step because it's been done before by others. I am positive that we can't agree on a robust definition of thinking, because the definition of thinking is beyond human understanding. We have to keep an open mind. I don't believe it's likely that any LLMs are experiencing anything we'd call thought, but without knowing how thought works, it would be foolish of me to say it's impossible. The problem in AI discussions is not the positions people are taking but the certainty with which they are taking them.
- YeGoblynQueenne 3y ago
  >> I am positive that we can't agree on a robust definition of thinking, because the definition of thinking is beyond human understanding. In that case, shouldn't the people who say LLMs can think do the hard work of explaining what "thinking" means and why they er think it's done by LLMs? Surely the default position should be that LLMs don't think because they don't belong to the class of entities that we know can think. If that default assumption is wrong, well, then, someone has to do the hard work of rejecting it. But just claiming that we think they think because who knows what thinking is, is just an excuse to not do the work.
  - digging 3y ago
    You've totally missed the point if you're still reaching to assume one position or the other. We can be sure humans think. Does a crow think? We don't know. Does an LLM think? We don't know. We can talk about more specific phenomena in contexts that demand it, if we have the data. But there is no way to say right now that an LLM does or does not think. All we can say is it seems unlikely.
- __loam 3y ago
  The AI camp has economic incentives to inflate what their systems can do. I'd bet we'd get a different reaction from neuroscientists.
  - digging 3y ago
    I'm specifically referring to the inability of current neuroscience to explain what "thinking" is.
- DanHulton 3y ago
  I would take the opposite opinion - we have to maintain a _critical_ mind. Otherwise, we're open to being taken advantage of by any smooth-talking charlatan (or LLM, but that's largely the same thing) that comes along. Constantly moving the goal posts with this incessant "but what IS intelligence, though?!?" gets us nowhere. By your own argument we can never define intelligence, so we can never actually discuss it. LLMs consistently and constantly fall down on tasks that we would not expect a human to fail at, but you and people like you insist we cannot use this as evidence because you refuse to accept any defined terms. I mean, remain as hopeful and uncritical as you want. But you're basically asking the rest of us "Who are you gonna believe, me or your lyin' eyes?" and that's gonna go about as well for you as it typically does.
  - digging 3y ago
    No, I don't see any of this as a response to my positions at all. I must not have expressed myself clearly enough. I'm not talking about getting scammed by SBF or whatever. I'm saying that there doesn't exist a definition of "thinking" that we can use to include or exclude LLMs from the group "beings that think". It's counterproductive to say they do or don't and is a distraction from useful conversation. To say I'm not being critical when I clearly said I don't think it's likely that LLMs think feels disingenuous and, frankly, uncritical. > By your own argument we can never define intelligence In no way does that extend from my argument. Intelligence and thinking are separate phenomena, and I didn't say "never".
jddj 3y ago
Just to throw the other side's perspective of the argument into the ring, the ones reducing the observed phenomena to obviously anything can seem emotional and defensive of some metaphysical person-ness.
ben_w 3y ago
It may be "plainly and obviously" different for you, but for me? I seem to have two components to my thinking process, one of which has ideas without needing words, another of which turns those ideas into words and gets (for lack of a better description) "annoyed" if I try to skip the word-generation part. There's no reason to presume we all think the same way; rather the opposite, given how many ways in which humans are already known to think unalike to each other.

stavros 3y ago

The difference is that your goldfish doesn't look like it's walking. I'm sure my door doesn't think. I'm not sure the LLM doesn't.

antisthenes 3y ago
> I'm not sure the LLM doesn't. If you turn off the power to the computer hosting the LLM, you can also be sure it doesn't think.

digging 3y ago

> For a lot of us, LLM behavior and thinking are so plainly and obviously dissimilar But what's obvious to you is not obvious to everyone. Even though you don't have to mathematically prove a goldfish doesn't walk for me to believe you, that's because we can both agree on a very good definition of walking. If it came down to it, I am sure we could sit down with pen an paper and some textbooks and agree upon a physical definition as robust as any. We're just skipping that step because it's been done before by others. I am positive that we can't agree on a robust definition of thinking, because the definition of thinking is beyond human understanding. We have to keep an open mind. I don't believe it's likely that any LLMs are experiencing anything we'd call thought, but without knowing how thought works, it would be foolish of me to say it's impossible. The problem in AI discussions is not the positions people are taking but the certainty with which they are taking them.

YeGoblynQueenne 3y ago
>> I am positive that we can't agree on a robust definition of thinking, because the definition of thinking is beyond human understanding. In that case, shouldn't the people who say LLMs can think do the hard work of explaining what "thinking" means and why they er think it's done by LLMs? Surely the default position should be that LLMs don't think because they don't belong to the class of entities that we know can think. If that default assumption is wrong, well, then, someone has to do the hard work of rejecting it. But just claiming that we think they think because who knows what thinking is, is just an excuse to not do the work.
- digging 3y ago
  You've totally missed the point if you're still reaching to assume one position or the other. We can be sure humans think. Does a crow think? We don't know. Does an LLM think? We don't know. We can talk about more specific phenomena in contexts that demand it, if we have the data. But there is no way to say right now that an LLM does or does not think. All we can say is it seems unlikely.
__loam 3y ago
The AI camp has economic incentives to inflate what their systems can do. I'd bet we'd get a different reaction from neuroscientists.
- digging 3y ago
  I'm specifically referring to the inability of current neuroscience to explain what "thinking" is.
DanHulton 3y ago
I would take the opposite opinion - we have to maintain a _critical_ mind. Otherwise, we're open to being taken advantage of by any smooth-talking charlatan (or LLM, but that's largely the same thing) that comes along. Constantly moving the goal posts with this incessant "but what IS intelligence, though?!?" gets us nowhere. By your own argument we can never define intelligence, so we can never actually discuss it. LLMs consistently and constantly fall down on tasks that we would not expect a human to fail at, but you and people like you insist we cannot use this as evidence because you refuse to accept any defined terms. I mean, remain as hopeful and uncritical as you want. But you're basically asking the rest of us "Who are you gonna believe, me or your lyin' eyes?" and that's gonna go about as well for you as it typically does.
- digging 3y ago
  No, I don't see any of this as a response to my positions at all. I must not have expressed myself clearly enough. I'm not talking about getting scammed by SBF or whatever. I'm saying that there doesn't exist a definition of "thinking" that we can use to include or exclude LLMs from the group "beings that think". It's counterproductive to say they do or don't and is a distraction from useful conversation. To say I'm not being critical when I clearly said I don't think it's likely that LLMs think feels disingenuous and, frankly, uncritical. > By your own argument we can never define intelligence In no way does that extend from my argument. Intelligence and thinking are separate phenomena, and I didn't say "never".

jddj 3y ago

Just to throw the other side's perspective of the argument into the ring, the ones reducing the observed phenomena to obviously anything can seem emotional and defensive of some metaphysical person-ness.

ben_w 3y ago

It may be "plainly and obviously" different for you, but for me? I seem to have two components to my thinking process, one of which has ideas without needing words, another of which turns those ideas into words and gets (for lack of a better description) "annoyed" if I try to skip the word-generation part. There's no reason to presume we all think the same way; rather the opposite, given how many ways in which humans are already known to think unalike to each other.