3 ms·

The big difference is we can logically reason what sequence of words come next. Though this requires a conscious effort and our innate biased are always working

by rdedev 3y ago

The big difference is we can logically reason what sequence of words come next. Though this requires a conscious effort and our innate biased are always working against us. One can always say that chain of thought reasoning is doing this but for me at least this seems like bootstrapping logical reasoning onto next token prediction and is not always guaranteed to work

com2kid 3y ago
> The big difference is we can logically reason what sequence of words come next. A lot of our language skills, especially in our first language, are implicitly defined and we are not consciously aware of the rules until someone points the rules out to us. https://www.gingersoftware.com/content/grammar-rules/adjectives/order-of-adjectives https://www.gingersoftware.com/content/grammar-rules/adjecti... > seems like bootstrapping logical reasoning onto next token prediction and is not always guaranteed to work The most fascinating philosophy class I took was in logical thinking, where we had to use predicate logic to diagram out English sentences. The tl;dr of it is that towards the end of class we went over political speeches and diagrammed them out to see what was really being said/implied. In a lot of cases the speeches, some of which demonstrated an excellent and eloquent use of the English language, said literally, absolutely nothing at all. Listeners could easily find a lot of meaning in the words (by design!) but in fact no meaning was present at all. The key here is that listeners would apply logic to the words, even where no logic existed. I'm not saying GPT4 has human intelligence, but I am saying that we shouldn't think our brains, which are full of ugly hacks and work arounds, are operating on some higher plain of existence. Intelligence barely works, and it is trivial to bypass, trick, and lead astray the "thoughtful" part of the human brain. Saying "GPT hallucinates facts" isn't saying much. The way memory retrieval works for people is literally "get a sketch of things that happened and use past experiences to fill in the details."

by rdedev 3y ago

com2kid 3y ago

> The big difference is we can logically reason what sequence of words come next. A lot of our language skills, especially in our first language, are implicitly defined and we are not consciously aware of the rules until someone points the rules out to us. https://www.gingersoftware.com/content/grammar-rules/adjectives/order-of-adjectives https://www.gingersoftware.com/content/grammar-rules/adjecti... > seems like bootstrapping logical reasoning onto next token prediction and is not always guaranteed to work The most fascinating philosophy class I took was in logical thinking, where we had to use predicate logic to diagram out English sentences. The tl;dr of it is that towards the end of class we went over political speeches and diagrammed them out to see what was really being said/implied. In a lot of cases the speeches, some of which demonstrated an excellent and eloquent use of the English language, said literally, absolutely nothing at all. Listeners could easily find a lot of meaning in the words (by design!) but in fact no meaning was present at all. The key here is that listeners would apply logic to the words, even where no logic existed. I'm not saying GPT4 has human intelligence, but I am saying that we shouldn't think our brains, which are full of ugly hacks and work arounds, are operating on some higher plain of existence. Intelligence barely works, and it is trivial to bypass, trick, and lead astray the "thoughtful" part of the human brain. Saying "GPT hallucinates facts" isn't saying much. The way memory retrieval works for people is literally "get a sketch of things that happened and use past experiences to fill in the details."