5 ms·

Observe your thought process while reading the following sentences. If you're not with us you're... If you scratch my back I'll.. A bird in the hand is worth

by jddj 3y ago

Observe your thought process while reading the following sentences. If you're not with us you're... If you scratch my back I'll.. A bird in the hand is worth... What is a bird in the hand worth? How did you know that?

danShumway 3y ago
I'm not sure what this is intended to demonstrate. Your response to "not all problems are solved through generating text" is "but what if the problem is specifically to generate text?" Sure? Yes, if you ask me to complete a sentence, I complete a sentence. That doesn't indicate that human brains are reducible to text generators. If anything, what's interesting about your example is that it might actually in some ways demonstrate the opposite of your point. How many instances are there of people memorizing text or song lyrics and singing along with an artist dozens of times, and only later sitting down and thinking about what the words actually mean? For humans, it's well understood that memorization and repetition of a text is not necessarily the same thing as understanding the concepts within that text. I feel confident I could find you some kids that know that "a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush" that have never actually thought about what that phrase is intending to convey.
- jddj 3y ago
  I didn't ask you to complete a sentence, though. Just to read them. Then I asked a question. I think you've made my point quite well.
  - danShumway 3y ago
    I'm going to be completely honest, I still don't know what your point is. That humans are capable of memorizing text? Is that a thing anyone was debating?
    - jddj 3y ago
      Drawing a line around the bits that aren't language generation unfairly ignores the massive apparatus that seems to be specialised (oftentimes overly so) at language generation. Sure there's other stuff going on, but a lot of it is language and a lot of that subset seems to be quite closely approximated by these larger LLMs, warts and all.
      - danShumway 3y ago
        Hold on a sec, think about what you're saying. The ability of a larger system to imitate a smaller system in some situations means they're they're mostly the same? Since when? If I told you that an LLM was basically a Markov chain because there are situations where the Markov chain and LLM produce similar output and where you could reasonably argue that it's possible the LLM is working the same way that the Markov chain is working -- you would (correctly) say I was oversimplifying what's going on in GPT. It would be a terrible comparison to make. Similarly, if you say that human reasoning is the result of an LLM, and what you're actually saying is that in a subset of situations humans produce output that could theoretically be working the same way as an LLM, I'm gonna say you're oversimplifying how human brains work. Very clearly, there is more going on in a human brain than language, evidenced by the fact that our brains are larger than our language centers and we can literally measure which parts of the human brain experience the most activity when we're tackling different tasks. > Sure there's other stuff going on, but a lot of it is language and a lot of that subset seems to be quite closely approximated by these larger LLMs, warts and all If you define your tests and scenarios to specifically encompass only the situations in which similar outputs are produced, then sure. But that's not a very strong argument for you to make. It's like saying chickens are basically the same as fish since both of them lay eggs. The phrase "sure there's other stuff" is doing a lot of work there, because "there's other stuff" is what we're all saying when we say that LLMs aren't just primitive humans -- LLMs are different from humans in the sense that when we reason, there's other stuff going on and the entire process is not reducible to only language generation. ---- Of course, absent from this conversation is the fact that the way our language center develops is different from how LLMs are trained and even in the parallels you're drawing, LLMs demonstrate different strengths and weaknesses from humans -- humans demonstrate reasoning capabilities faster than proficiency with language/text, LLMs demonstrate proficiency with text faster than they demonstrate reasoning capabilities. Even in situations where both LLMs and humans predict text, it's likely that we're using different strategies to do so given our differing capabilities. Look I am not even making a claim about whether GPT can reason. Defining intelligence through a purely human lens would be unimaginative and needlessly narrow. Whether GPT actually reasons or just appears to is a different conversation. I haven't touched that conversation, all that I'm saying is, it's very obvious that whatever GPT is doing, it is different from how human brains work.
colonCapitalDee 3y ago
> A lot of people think in concepts without words at all in many scenarios. Many scenarios, not all scenarios.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

by jddj 3y ago

danShumway 3y ago

I'm not sure what this is intended to demonstrate. Your response to "not all problems are solved through generating text" is "but what if the problem is specifically to generate text?" Sure? Yes, if you ask me to complete a sentence, I complete a sentence. That doesn't indicate that human brains are reducible to text generators. If anything, what's interesting about your example is that it might actually in some ways demonstrate the opposite of your point. How many instances are there of people memorizing text or song lyrics and singing along with an artist dozens of times, and only later sitting down and thinking about what the words actually mean? For humans, it's well understood that memorization and repetition of a text is not necessarily the same thing as understanding the concepts within that text. I feel confident I could find you some kids that know that "a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush" that have never actually thought about what that phrase is intending to convey.

jddj 3y ago
I didn't ask you to complete a sentence, though. Just to read them. Then I asked a question. I think you've made my point quite well.
- danShumway 3y ago
  I'm going to be completely honest, I still don't know what your point is. That humans are capable of memorizing text? Is that a thing anyone was debating?
  - jddj 3y ago
    Drawing a line around the bits that aren't language generation unfairly ignores the massive apparatus that seems to be specialised (oftentimes overly so) at language generation. Sure there's other stuff going on, but a lot of it is language and a lot of that subset seems to be quite closely approximated by these larger LLMs, warts and all.
    - danShumway 3y ago
      Hold on a sec, think about what you're saying. The ability of a larger system to imitate a smaller system in some situations means they're they're mostly the same? Since when? If I told you that an LLM was basically a Markov chain because there are situations where the Markov chain and LLM produce similar output and where you could reasonably argue that it's possible the LLM is working the same way that the Markov chain is working -- you would (correctly) say I was oversimplifying what's going on in GPT. It would be a terrible comparison to make. Similarly, if you say that human reasoning is the result of an LLM, and what you're actually saying is that in a subset of situations humans produce output that could theoretically be working the same way as an LLM, I'm gonna say you're oversimplifying how human brains work. Very clearly, there is more going on in a human brain than language, evidenced by the fact that our brains are larger than our language centers and we can literally measure which parts of the human brain experience the most activity when we're tackling different tasks. > Sure there's other stuff going on, but a lot of it is language and a lot of that subset seems to be quite closely approximated by these larger LLMs, warts and all If you define your tests and scenarios to specifically encompass only the situations in which similar outputs are produced, then sure. But that's not a very strong argument for you to make. It's like saying chickens are basically the same as fish since both of them lay eggs. The phrase "sure there's other stuff" is doing a lot of work there, because "there's other stuff" is what we're all saying when we say that LLMs aren't just primitive humans -- LLMs are different from humans in the sense that when we reason, there's other stuff going on and the entire process is not reducible to only language generation. ---- Of course, absent from this conversation is the fact that the way our language center develops is different from how LLMs are trained and even in the parallels you're drawing, LLMs demonstrate different strengths and weaknesses from humans -- humans demonstrate reasoning capabilities faster than proficiency with language/text, LLMs demonstrate proficiency with text faster than they demonstrate reasoning capabilities. Even in situations where both LLMs and humans predict text, it's likely that we're using different strategies to do so given our differing capabilities. Look I am not even making a claim about whether GPT can reason. Defining intelligence through a purely human lens would be unimaginative and needlessly narrow. Whether GPT actually reasons or just appears to is a different conversation. I haven't touched that conversation, all that I'm saying is, it's very obvious that whatever GPT is doing, it is different from how human brains work.

colonCapitalDee 3y ago

> A lot of people think in concepts without words at all in many scenarios. Many scenarios, not all scenarios.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]