4 ms·

Latest research shows emergent behavior is illusory. It doesn't preclude future emergence but currently models show 0 emergent behavior. To me the most interes

Latest research shows emergent behavior is illusory. It doesn't preclude future emergence but currently models show 0 emergent behavior. To me the most interesting aspect of LLMs is the way that they reveal cognitive 0-days in humans. The human race needs patches to cognitive firmware to deal with predictive text... Which is a fascinating revelation to me. Sure it's backed up by psych analysis for decades but it's interesting to watch it play out on such a large scale.

gitfan86 3y ago
When a human makes a mistake it is a "cognitive 0-day" but when an LLM does something correctly it is "illusory"?
- crowbahr 3y ago
  The cognitive 0-day is not the way that humans act like LLMs, it's the way humans anthropomorphize LLMs. It's the blind faith that LLMs do more than they do. The illusion of emergence is fact not fiction. The cognitive biases exposed by stochastic parrots are fact not fiction.
  - gitfan86 3y ago
    That is no different than saying beauty is only real if it is 100% natural. A woman who wears makeup and colors her hair is just an illusion of beauty. It is a philosophical argument to say that a machine isn't truly intelligent because it isn't using the same type of neural network as a human
    - discreteevent 3y ago
      Parent is saying that with something as sophisticated as intelligence it's not enough to say that if it behaves like a duck it's a duck (which is what your seem to be saying and which the parent calls a 0-day). There are some really good bulshitters who have led smart people into deep trouble. These bulshitters behaved really like ducks but they weren't ducks. The duck test just isn't good enough. The -1 day is where people say that because LLMs behave like humans then humans must be based on the same tech. I just wonder if these people have ever debugged a complex system only to discover that their initial model of how it worked was way off.
      - gitfan86 3y ago
        That is a new definition of intelligence that you are using. You are saying that even when something can outperform humans in the SAT or other tests of intelligence, it isn't actually intelligent due to it not being a carbon based lifeform
        discreteevent 3y ago
        No. I gave the example of a bullshitter - who is usually a carbon based life form.
        Xelynega 3y ago
        Outperforming on the SAT(a test that the model was trained on) doesn't seem like a marker of intelligence as much as it is of recall.
afpx 3y ago
What about papers like these that suggest creation of task-oriented manifolds? https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/764258v3 https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/764258v3

gitfan86 3y ago

When a human makes a mistake it is a "cognitive 0-day" but when an LLM does something correctly it is "illusory"?

crowbahr 3y ago
The cognitive 0-day is not the way that humans act like LLMs, it's the way humans anthropomorphize LLMs. It's the blind faith that LLMs do more than they do. The illusion of emergence is fact not fiction. The cognitive biases exposed by stochastic parrots are fact not fiction.
- gitfan86 3y ago
  That is no different than saying beauty is only real if it is 100% natural. A woman who wears makeup and colors her hair is just an illusion of beauty. It is a philosophical argument to say that a machine isn't truly intelligent because it isn't using the same type of neural network as a human
  - discreteevent 3y ago
    Parent is saying that with something as sophisticated as intelligence it's not enough to say that if it behaves like a duck it's a duck (which is what your seem to be saying and which the parent calls a 0-day). There are some really good bulshitters who have led smart people into deep trouble. These bulshitters behaved really like ducks but they weren't ducks. The duck test just isn't good enough. The -1 day is where people say that because LLMs behave like humans then humans must be based on the same tech. I just wonder if these people have ever debugged a complex system only to discover that their initial model of how it worked was way off.
    - gitfan86 3y ago
      That is a new definition of intelligence that you are using. You are saying that even when something can outperform humans in the SAT or other tests of intelligence, it isn't actually intelligent due to it not being a carbon based lifeform
      - discreteevent 3y ago
        No. I gave the example of a bullshitter - who is usually a carbon based life form.
      - Xelynega 3y ago
        Outperforming on the SAT(a test that the model was trained on) doesn't seem like a marker of intelligence as much as it is of recall.

afpx 3y ago

What about papers like these that suggest creation of task-oriented manifolds? https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/764258v3 https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/764258v3