3 ms·

So we are model ensembles, probably capable of real-time training of short term memory. LLMs are maybe a type of mind. They may carry and operate on basic thou

So we are model ensembles, probably capable of real-time training of short term memory. LLMs are maybe a type of mind. They may carry and operate on basic thoughts, ideas, books, pages, sentences, words, letters…. They can probably problem solve and write code that runs sometimes. What they know about the world was told to them through stories, so whatever way we see it, they will too, maybe. I don’t have to imagine anything in mind to process thoughts. All I need is an attention loop.

chongli 3y ago
What they know about the world was told to them through stories, so whatever way we see it, they will too, maybe. Knowledge is justified true belief. If you park your car on 5th avenue, you know it is parked there because you witnessed yourself parking it there. You have strong justification for your belief that you parked it on 5th avenue. But if you then go to work and your car is out of sight, your justification fades. If you look out the window and see your car parked there, you reaffirm your belief. However, if you look and your car is not there, you realize you don’t know where your car is. For a period of time you were mistaken in your belief about the whereabouts of your car. During the time when your car was out of sight, you went from knowing to not knowing where your car was, but nothing changed inside your mind. To update your belief, you needed new information about the world. An LLM has no justification for any of the information in its training set. It has no experiences with which to connect words and facts to real world objects and events. Therefore it cannot be said to have knowledge of any of it.
- Davidzheng 3y ago
  I think this is an incredibly strict definition of knowledge that would preclude many experts from many fields--and very different from how it is normally used.
  - chongli 3y ago
    It's not my opinion, it's the standard philosophical account of knowledge [1]. Do you have any examples of "experts" whose basic knowledge would be precluded by this definition? [1] https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/knowledge-analysis/#KnowJustTrueBeli https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/knowledge-analysis/#KnowJ...

chongli 3y ago

What they know about the world was told to them through stories, so whatever way we see it, they will too, maybe. Knowledge is justified true belief. If you park your car on 5th avenue, you know it is parked there because you witnessed yourself parking it there. You have strong justification for your belief that you parked it on 5th avenue. But if you then go to work and your car is out of sight, your justification fades. If you look out the window and see your car parked there, you reaffirm your belief. However, if you look and your car is not there, you realize you don’t know where your car is. For a period of time you were mistaken in your belief about the whereabouts of your car. During the time when your car was out of sight, you went from knowing to not knowing where your car was, but nothing changed inside your mind. To update your belief, you needed new information about the world. An LLM has no justification for any of the information in its training set. It has no experiences with which to connect words and facts to real world objects and events. Therefore it cannot be said to have knowledge of any of it.

Davidzheng 3y ago
I think this is an incredibly strict definition of knowledge that would preclude many experts from many fields--and very different from how it is normally used.
- chongli 3y ago
  It's not my opinion, it's the standard philosophical account of knowledge [1]. Do you have any examples of "experts" whose basic knowledge would be precluded by this definition? [1] https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/knowledge-analysis/#KnowJustTrueBeli https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/knowledge-analysis/#KnowJ...