4 ms·

Now you're falsely equating biological brains with giant arrays of floating point numbers. we have NOT evolved where we are today by generating inputs to ourse

by wg0 3y ago

Now you're falsely equating biological brains with giant arrays of floating point numbers. we have NOT evolved where we are today by generating inputs to ourselves, watching our own output and modifying our inputs to watch again our outputs. Rather - we had fundamental strong reasoning almost flawless rigorous (formally documented) capabilities from the get go. Interference, induction, deduction. LLMs have none of that and it's documented all over multiple times over. We have built at that on top of those faculties again - by not giving input to us and observing our outputs rather poking around into the world with are reasoning and cognitive faculties and arranging/categorising carefully what we discovered. So for fanboys, this surely is very huge and I respect that sentiment wholeheartedly. EDIT: Note about reasoning

travisjungroth 3y ago
> Rather - we had fundamental strong reasoning almost flawless rigorous (formally documented) capabilities from the get go. What are you talking about? This doesn't describe the vast majority of human knowledge. You're dismissing the possibility of new technology via a real loose analogy and insulting anyone who disagrees. This isn't what good reasoning looks like. GANs already exist. The linked project already exists. > A model will generate its own input and will watch it's own output and in process, will become more intelligent than it really is. If you sub out the needless contradiction of "more intelligent than it really is" for "more intelligent than it was", then this is something that already happens. It will continue to happen whether you believe in it or not. You're acting like you're arguing against people with sketches of perpetual motion devices. You're not. This is like arguing against heavier-than-air flight in 1905. You are way behind.
- wg0 3y ago
  > What are you talking about? This doesn't describe the vast majority of human knowledge. I hope you don't mean to say that vast majority of knowledge is devoid of any consistent reasoning and is just hallucinated on the way as an LLM does. > It will continue to happen whether you believe in it or not. We'll see. I believe post transformers, next AI winter is around the corner - for a while. What I see above is an LLM chewing its own output with light modifications as input and that's not going to lead anywhere as the README of the project itself clearly notes. It gets stuck.
  - travisjungroth 3y ago
    It's certainly not "almost flawless rigorous (formally documented) capabilities". > We'll see. I guess people could just... stop. Seems unlikely. Again, you're saying that something already happening is impossible.
Palmik 3y ago
> we have NOT evolved where we are today by generating inputs to ourselves Sure, we have not evolved this way in the strictly biological sense, but we did greatly extend our capabilities this way. The jump in capabilities in the past tens of thousands of years is mostly from passing knowledge around and incrementally building on top of it. Often by building higher level abstractions, and building more complex systems on top of those, or by dividing the problem into distinct parts, and having people specialize.

by wg0 3y ago

travisjungroth 3y ago

> Rather - we had fundamental strong reasoning almost flawless rigorous (formally documented) capabilities from the get go. What are you talking about? This doesn't describe the vast majority of human knowledge. You're dismissing the possibility of new technology via a real loose analogy and insulting anyone who disagrees. This isn't what good reasoning looks like. GANs already exist. The linked project already exists. > A model will generate its own input and will watch it's own output and in process, will become more intelligent than it really is. If you sub out the needless contradiction of "more intelligent than it really is" for "more intelligent than it was", then this is something that already happens. It will continue to happen whether you believe in it or not. You're acting like you're arguing against people with sketches of perpetual motion devices. You're not. This is like arguing against heavier-than-air flight in 1905. You are way behind.

wg0 3y ago
> What are you talking about? This doesn't describe the vast majority of human knowledge. I hope you don't mean to say that vast majority of knowledge is devoid of any consistent reasoning and is just hallucinated on the way as an LLM does. > It will continue to happen whether you believe in it or not. We'll see. I believe post transformers, next AI winter is around the corner - for a while. What I see above is an LLM chewing its own output with light modifications as input and that's not going to lead anywhere as the README of the project itself clearly notes. It gets stuck.
- travisjungroth 3y ago
  It's certainly not "almost flawless rigorous (formally documented) capabilities". > We'll see. I guess people could just... stop. Seems unlikely. Again, you're saying that something already happening is impossible.

Palmik 3y ago

> we have NOT evolved where we are today by generating inputs to ourselves Sure, we have not evolved this way in the strictly biological sense, but we did greatly extend our capabilities this way. The jump in capabilities in the past tens of thousands of years is mostly from passing knowledge around and incrementally building on top of it. Often by building higher level abstractions, and building more complex systems on top of those, or by dividing the problem into distinct parts, and having people specialize.