4 ms·

I’m tired of this repetitive statement which is so ridiculous. That’s what you do to! You obviously have to reason using in the fly models on how to pick the

I’m tired of this repetitive statement which is so ridiculous. That’s what you do to! You obviously have to reason using in the fly models on how to pick the next word.

xanderlewis 3y ago
That ‘that’s what humans do too’ is also a repetitive statement. The truth lies somewhere in between, as always: humans and LLMs are similar, but in their current state LLMs do have a serious problem with reasoning tasks — even ones children find trivial.
- WhitneyLand 3y ago
  What reasoning problem do children find trivial and LLM’s have serious problems with? I can’t think of any off the top of my head. I also tried to get GPT4 to craft such a problem and it was unable to: https://chat.openai.com/share/c1d5af4b-1d45-41ed-8f5a-746ea09278e4 https://chat.openai.com/share/c1d5af4b-1d45-41ed-8f5a-746ea0...
  - RationalDino 3y ago
    Solving mazes. GTP4 got stuck at 7x7. https://ekzhu.medium.com/gpt-4s-maze-navigation-a-deep-dive-into-react-agent-and-llm-s-thoughts-b1823fb266ee https://ekzhu.medium.com/gpt-4s-maze-navigation-a-deep-dive-...
    - TeMPOraL 3y ago
      My 4.5 yo wouldn't solve a 7x7 maze zero-shot either, not off-hand. Not even given multiple examples. Especially if getting confused, frustrated, and giving up is a valid move. At which point and after how much training a kid becomes able to solve mazes like this? Also, given how one can pull a problem like this - any problem - out of their ass, describe it to GPT-4, and it has a good chance of solving it, that's quite amazing compared to children generally not being capable of this.
roflyear 3y ago
Arguably, but not absolutely.
NineStarPoint 3y ago
Given the amount of people who report not having an internal monologue at all, I don’t think human logic is predicated on using words. They definitely can make complex logic easier, but it’s not a requirement. The cabbage, wolf, goat problem is also an easy example of a problem that doesn't really need words to solve once you’ve conceptualized it. You can solve it by moving physical figures back and forth, either literally on a table or using the visual imagination part of your mind if you have one.
- timschmidt 3y ago
  Not being aware of something is different from not having something. If said people still manage to carry on conversation, chances are good it's being generated somewhere internally. Everyone is self-aware to different extents and about different aspects of self.
- bmitc 3y ago
  > Given the amount of people who report not having an internal monologue at all, What does this mean?
  - Filligree 3y ago
    What is an internal monologue, exactly? Certainly I've heard to words a lot, but... what is it? That thing. I don't do that.
    - yreg 3y ago
      It's thinking in words.
  - bongodongobob 3y ago
    [flagged]
    - TeMPOraL 3y ago
      No, that's called aphantasia, it's orthogonal to not having an inner monologue (the "voice in your head"), and there are in fact people who effectively hallucinate on demand. Which I suppose explains a lot of phrases that make little sense if they're only taken symbolically. Or why some people like long scenery descriptions in books - they can literally imagine it. Unfortunately, I'm aphantasic, so I can't.
CrazyStat 3y ago
> obviously This is not at all obvious to me. Symbolic reasoning feels quite different from picking the next word. Using physical demonstrations (or mental models of physical demonstrations) feels quite different from picking the next word. Over the years I’ve come to believe that claims that something is “obvious” tell you more about the claimant’s state of mind than about the thing being claimed.
- TeMPOraL 3y ago
  Symbolic reasoning isn't an atomic action. I can't speak for you or anyone else, but at least for me, symbolic reasoning involves either cached conclusions, or a fuck ton of talking to myself in my head - and that part is effectively LLM-like. Which is why I'm still bewildered people expect LLMs to solve math and symbolic issues directly, when they're clearly (see e.g. "chain of thought") better treated as "inner voice" and used accordingly.
  - lovecg 3y ago
    A lot of this kind of reasoning is very visual to me and involves no inner monologue of any kind - just visualizations flying around in my brain in complete silence. The translation into words happens later as a separate step. I wonder if this is not a universal experience.
    - pixl97 3y ago
      Some people have no inner monolog, something that blew my mind. When I work on problems I don't understand I'll monolog it internally. Now when I'm doing things I understand well I have some kind of internal shortcut language (my own token set I guess), that can sometimes make it difficult to explain to other people.
    - Davidzheng 3y ago
      Can you describe how you would reason about say a paragraph of code--something which is very language based?

I’m tired of this repetitive statement which is so ridiculous. That’s what you do to! You obviously have to reason using in the fly models on how to pick the next word.

xanderlewis 3y ago

That ‘that’s what humans do too’ is also a repetitive statement. The truth lies somewhere in between, as always: humans and LLMs are similar, but in their current state LLMs do have a serious problem with reasoning tasks — even ones children find trivial.

WhitneyLand 3y ago
What reasoning problem do children find trivial and LLM’s have serious problems with? I can’t think of any off the top of my head. I also tried to get GPT4 to craft such a problem and it was unable to: https://chat.openai.com/share/c1d5af4b-1d45-41ed-8f5a-746ea09278e4 https://chat.openai.com/share/c1d5af4b-1d45-41ed-8f5a-746ea0...
- RationalDino 3y ago
  Solving mazes. GTP4 got stuck at 7x7. https://ekzhu.medium.com/gpt-4s-maze-navigation-a-deep-dive-into-react-agent-and-llm-s-thoughts-b1823fb266ee https://ekzhu.medium.com/gpt-4s-maze-navigation-a-deep-dive-...
  - TeMPOraL 3y ago
    My 4.5 yo wouldn't solve a 7x7 maze zero-shot either, not off-hand. Not even given multiple examples. Especially if getting confused, frustrated, and giving up is a valid move. At which point and after how much training a kid becomes able to solve mazes like this? Also, given how one can pull a problem like this - any problem - out of their ass, describe it to GPT-4, and it has a good chance of solving it, that's quite amazing compared to children generally not being capable of this.

roflyear 3y ago

Arguably, but not absolutely.

NineStarPoint 3y ago

Given the amount of people who report not having an internal monologue at all, I don’t think human logic is predicated on using words. They definitely can make complex logic easier, but it’s not a requirement. The cabbage, wolf, goat problem is also an easy example of a problem that doesn't really need words to solve once you’ve conceptualized it. You can solve it by moving physical figures back and forth, either literally on a table or using the visual imagination part of your mind if you have one.

timschmidt 3y ago
Not being aware of something is different from not having something. If said people still manage to carry on conversation, chances are good it's being generated somewhere internally. Everyone is self-aware to different extents and about different aspects of self.
bmitc 3y ago
> Given the amount of people who report not having an internal monologue at all, What does this mean?
- Filligree 3y ago
  What is an internal monologue, exactly? Certainly I've heard to words a lot, but... what is it? That thing. I don't do that.
  - yreg 3y ago
    It's thinking in words.
- bongodongobob 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - TeMPOraL 3y ago
    No, that's called aphantasia, it's orthogonal to not having an inner monologue (the "voice in your head"), and there are in fact people who effectively hallucinate on demand. Which I suppose explains a lot of phrases that make little sense if they're only taken symbolically. Or why some people like long scenery descriptions in books - they can literally imagine it. Unfortunately, I'm aphantasic, so I can't.

CrazyStat 3y ago

> obviously This is not at all obvious to me. Symbolic reasoning feels quite different from picking the next word. Using physical demonstrations (or mental models of physical demonstrations) feels quite different from picking the next word. Over the years I’ve come to believe that claims that something is “obvious” tell you more about the claimant’s state of mind than about the thing being claimed.

TeMPOraL 3y ago
Symbolic reasoning isn't an atomic action. I can't speak for you or anyone else, but at least for me, symbolic reasoning involves either cached conclusions, or a fuck ton of talking to myself in my head - and that part is effectively LLM-like. Which is why I'm still bewildered people expect LLMs to solve math and symbolic issues directly, when they're clearly (see e.g. "chain of thought") better treated as "inner voice" and used accordingly.
- lovecg 3y ago
  A lot of this kind of reasoning is very visual to me and involves no inner monologue of any kind - just visualizations flying around in my brain in complete silence. The translation into words happens later as a separate step. I wonder if this is not a universal experience.
  - pixl97 3y ago
    Some people have no inner monolog, something that blew my mind. When I work on problems I don't understand I'll monolog it internally. Now when I'm doing things I understand well I have some kind of internal shortcut language (my own token set I guess), that can sometimes make it difficult to explain to other people.
  - Davidzheng 3y ago
    Can you describe how you would reason about say a paragraph of code--something which is very language based?