3 ms·

> If a NN is trained to do something, it can be equally considered as "wanting" to do that thing within the autonomy it is afforded, as much as any human. Huma

> If a NN is trained to do something, it can be equally considered as "wanting" to do that thing within the autonomy it is afforded, as much as any human. Human wants are driven by instinct though - i.e. our preferences; if you like women, you like women, if you don’t, you don’t. Our “output” is in service to those wants. Current AI doesn’t have instinct / preprogrammed goals - except for goal-driven AIs but the hyped up LLMs aren’t such AIs. Their output isn’t motivated by any goal - a LLM can’t deliberately lie to you to get you to do something; it lies because it doesn’t differentiate between what’s true and what’s false.

Zambyte 3y ago
> Human wants are driven by instinct though What is instinct physically? > a LLM can’t deliberately lie to you to get you to do something; it lies because it doesn’t differentiate between what’s true and what’s false. A LLM also can't do multi-step reasoning, yet here we are.
- TerrifiedMouse 3y ago
  > What is instinct physically? Does it matter? As long as it conceptually exist that’s all that matters. LLMs don’t seek any goal. It’s advanced autocomplete. You can’t give it a bunch of facts and a goal then expect it to figure out how to achieve said goal. It can give you an answer if it already has it (or something similar) in its training set - in the latter case, it’s like a student who didn’t study for the exam and tries to guess the right answer with “heuristics”. > A LLM also can't do multi-step reasoning, yet here we are. Where’s “here”?
  - Zambyte 3y ago
    > Does it matter? As long as it conceptually exist that’s all that matters. It does matter. Where is it? By evading this you have basically described "instinct" as something computers simply cannot have, axiomatically. That's boring. > LLMs don’t seek any goal. It’s advanced autocomplete. These two sentences are contradictory. > You can’t give it a bunch of facts and a goal then expect it to figure out how to achieve said goal. Have you used a language model lately? It sounds like you're saying things you think a LLM shouldn't be able to do as if they can't do them. Giving it a bunch of facts and a goal and expecting it to figure out how to achieve the goal is something you can do. It's not perfect, but they can be surprisingly good. > Where’s “here”? At a point in time where LLMs can do multi-step reasoning.

Zambyte 3y ago

> Human wants are driven by instinct though What is instinct physically? > a LLM can’t deliberately lie to you to get you to do something; it lies because it doesn’t differentiate between what’s true and what’s false. A LLM also can't do multi-step reasoning, yet here we are.

TerrifiedMouse 3y ago
> What is instinct physically? Does it matter? As long as it conceptually exist that’s all that matters. LLMs don’t seek any goal. It’s advanced autocomplete. You can’t give it a bunch of facts and a goal then expect it to figure out how to achieve said goal. It can give you an answer if it already has it (or something similar) in its training set - in the latter case, it’s like a student who didn’t study for the exam and tries to guess the right answer with “heuristics”. > A LLM also can't do multi-step reasoning, yet here we are. Where’s “here”?
- Zambyte 3y ago
  > Does it matter? As long as it conceptually exist that’s all that matters. It does matter. Where is it? By evading this you have basically described "instinct" as something computers simply cannot have, axiomatically. That's boring. > LLMs don’t seek any goal. It’s advanced autocomplete. These two sentences are contradictory. > You can’t give it a bunch of facts and a goal then expect it to figure out how to achieve said goal. Have you used a language model lately? It sounds like you're saying things you think a LLM shouldn't be able to do as if they can't do them. Giving it a bunch of facts and a goal and expecting it to figure out how to achieve the goal is something you can do. It's not perfect, but they can be surprisingly good. > Where’s “here”? At a point in time where LLMs can do multi-step reasoning.