3 ms·
If you abstract enough, humans and fungi are the same. Abstract further, humans and rocks are the same. Yet humans aren't fungi, nor are they rocks. Abstract th
by krapp 3y ago
If you abstract enough, humans and fungi are the same. Abstract further, humans and rocks are the same. Yet humans aren't fungi, nor are they rocks. Abstract the concepts of "input" and "algorithm" and "calculation" enough and "an algorithm that needs to be run and fed with input to perform calculations" could describe programming a remote control. Or tying shoes. Are shoes beings? Are humans shoes? Are shoes rocks?
There comes a point at which abstraction becomes too general to be useful, and most attempts to equate LLMs with human beings fall into that category for me. Yes, one could describe the intricacies and complexities of human thought and reasoning as equivalent to prompting a stateless stochastic token matching machine but all that proves is how much of a reach the premise is.
- starbugs 3y ago> Yes, one could describe the intricacies and complexities of human thought and reasoning as equivalent to prompting a stateless stochastic token matching machine but all that proves is how much of a reach the premise is. If you ask me, no you cannot do that even if you know you're stretching the limits of that "abstraction". It just doesn't fly even in the wildest theory. Even if an LLM has a world model that could be compared to a human one, the whole underlying nature of experience is completely missing, hence rendering even this narrow comparison extremely wonky. Otherwise, I like the way you've put it into words though!