4 ms·
Way too many people extrapolate from "AI Foo can't do task X" to "AIs in general can never do task X", whether X is a good thing (like playing Go) or a bad thin
by apsec112 3y ago
Way too many people extrapolate from "AI Foo can't do task X" to "AIs in general can never do task X", whether X is a good thing (like playing Go) or a bad thing (like helping build bioweapons). AI right now is pretty much the fastest-moving field in human history. GPT-4 can't revolutionize the economy, and it can't commit mass murder, but we simply don't know if GPT-7 can do either of those things (which likely won't be a pure LLM, but an integrated system with full audio/video abilities, robotics, long-term memory, etc.). We don't know that it can, but it also seems foolish to definitively say that it can't based on previous models, like the people who said that GPT-2's lack of logical reasoning ability proved that LLMs could never reason. We simply don't know, and we won't until it's actually built.
- solarpunk 3y agowe better make sure microsoft devotes all funding earmarked for openai to ensuring future versions of their product are incapable of creating bad outcomes.
- Terr_ 3y agoMeh, the humans at Microsoft already create bad outcomes on purpose--for consumers anyway.
- zeofig 3y agoOn the contrary... way too many people see "AI can do X", "AI can do Y", "I can draw an imaginary line between X, Y and Z", "therefore AI can totally maybe do Z". The fact that we "just don't know" doesn't mean anything. You just don't know if Jesus will return tomorrow and bring the rapture.
- pixl97 3y agoThe probability that Jesus will return tomorrow is extremely low if not zero. When talking about the probability of AI doing X or Y the probability is much closer to 1 if physics allows it.
- groggo 3y agoI appreciate that you acknowledge there's at least a chance.
- zeofig 3y agoIf physics allows it... a considerable assumption. In my view physics (or mathematics, or whatever) doesn't even allow an LLM to "reason", let alone manufacture novel bioweapons. The probability of Jesus returning is considerable too if we assume the bible is true.
- marcellus23 3y agoWhat if you ignore LLMs specifically? I think that's the point that the GP was making. Do you believe it's mathematically impossible for any artificial machine to "reason"? Or just LLMs?
- drowsspa 3y agoI'm guessing the answer will be soul or something of sorts. Not even based on the previous comments, even non-religious people seem to have this supernatural view of a soul.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- Libcat99 3y agoIf humans can reason, then physics allows it, and software can too, eventually.
- knightoffaith 3y agoWhy doesn't physics or mathematics allow LLMs to reason?
- Vecr 3y agohttps://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39173034 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39173034 If this paper replicates, LLM-like large transformer models can approximate Solomonoff induction pretty well, with other neural net types showing clear evidence of generalizing outside the training distribution. If substantial efficiency improvements get implemented and new architectures get developed, that's game over. The AI is smarter than you, and can trivially be made into an agent by having the approximate Solomonoff induction section simulate the behavior of an agent in the real world, and then having another section change the real world to match the simulation by controlling the real-world agent, creating a full cybernetic system, a closed loop.
- croniev 3y agoWould you say that GPT-4 can reason now? I am not convinced this is case, it seems like it has just become more consistent at providing us with an output that we consider reasonable because it was engineered precisely to do that.
- Nifty3929 3y agoIt’s definitely not the case. LLMs of any sort do not in any sense reason or understand anything. They literally just make stuff up (technically just a continuation of whatever you fed in), which usually sounds good, is often true and sometimes even helpful. Because those are qualities of the training data that was used and is the basis for the stuff it’s making up.
- foo3a9c4 3y ago> It’s definitely not the case. LLMs of any sort do not in any sense reason or understand anything. This seems like a claim about the way that the LLM neural net algorithm works. But AFAIK no one has a good understanding of how the LLM NNs work. Why are you so certain that the LLM NN isn't doing the reasoning-algorithm or the understanding-algorithm?
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- habinero 3y agoNeural networks are not new, and they're just mathematical systems. LLMs don't think. At all. They're basically glorified autocorrect. What they're good for is generating a lot of natural-sounding text that fools people into thinking there's more going on than there really is.
- foo3a9c4 3y ago> Neural networks are not new I agree. The McCullough-Pitts paper was published in 1943. > they're just mathematical systems. What do you mean by "mathematical system"? AFAIK the GPT4 model is literally a computer program. > LLMs don't think. At all. This is the same assertion that OP made and I'm still confused as to how anyone could be certain of its truth given that no one actually knows what is going on inside of the GPT4 program. > They're basically glorified autocorrect. What they're good for is generating a lot of natural-sounding text that fools people into thinking there's more going on than there really is. Is that an argument for the claim "LLMs don't think."? It doesn't seem like it to me, but maybe I'm mistaken.