4 ms·

Why do you think that data compression and cognition are fundamentally different?

namaria 3y ago
The behavior of large language models compressing 20 years of internet and being incapable of showing any true understanding of the things described therein.
- FredPret 3y ago
  A human also compresses many years of experience into one conversation. Does this reflect true understanding of the things described? Only the human doing the talking can know, and even that is on shaky ground. (if you don't understand something, will you always realize this? You have to know it a little bit to judge your own competence).
  - namaria 3y ago
    We compress data from many senses and can use that to interactively build inner models and filters for the data stream. The experience of psychedelics such as psylocibin and lsd can be summarized as disabling some of these filters. The deep dream trick google did a while back was a good illustration of hallucinations and also seen in some symptoms of schizophrenia. In my view that shows we are simulating some brain data processing functions. Results from the systems conducting these simulations are very far from the capabilities of humans but help shed light into how we work. Conflating these systems with the full cognitive range of human understanding is disingenuous at best.
    - FredPret 3y ago
      It clearly can't have human understanding without being a human. But that doesn't mean it can't have any understanding. You can represent every word in English in a vector database; this isn't how humans understand words, but it's not nothing and might be better in some ways. Fish swim, submarines sail.
    - mistermann 3y ago
      > The experience of psychedelics such as psylocibin and lsd can be summarized as disabling some of these filters. I was thinking last night about where (during the trip) the certainty aspect of the "realer than reality" sensation comes from... The theory I came up with is that the certainty comes from the delta between the two experiences, as opposed to (solely) the psychedelic experience itself. This assumes that one's read on normal reality at the time remains largely intact, which I believe is (often) the case. Further investigation is needed, I'm working from several years old memories.
- CamperBob2 3y ago
  At some point, we'll have to define "true understanding." Now seems like a good time to start thinking about it.
  - namaria 3y ago
    If a person could talk cogently about something for a minute or two before descending into incoherent mumbling would you say they have true understanding of the things they said in that minute?
    - CamperBob2 3y ago
      If so, you'll have to credit ChatGPT4 with the ability to do just that.
      - namaria 3y ago
        Funny how you ask a sharp question and suddenly people answer "ha check mate". Two replies and two fast claims of winning the argument in response but not one honest answer.
        CamperBob2 3y ago
        Did you have an actual point to make?
    - zo1 3y ago
      Sounds like every debate and argument I've ever had. You push and prod their argument for a few sentences back and forth and before you know it they start getting aggressive in their responses. Probably because they know they will soon devolve into a complete hallucinatory mess.
      - namaria 3y ago
        Devolving into accusing me of aggression and implying I'm incapable of understanding the conversation for asking you a question sounds like you're the one avoiding it.
- int_19h 3y ago
  There are many context in which it does show "true understanding", though, as evidenced by the ability to make new conclusions. Whether it has enough understanding is a separate question. Why should we treat the concept as a binary, when it's clearly not the case even for ourselves? These models we have now are ultimately still toy-sized. Why is it surprising that their "compression" of 20 years of Internet is so lossy?
staticman2 3y ago
Why would anyone think otherwise?
Groxx 3y ago
Ignoring where I personally draw my line in the sand: people claiming they're the same have literally only failed in demonstrating it, so it's not much of a scientific debate. It's a philosophy or dogma. It may be correct. Results are far from conclusive, or even supportive depending on interpretation.
maximus-decimus 3y ago
Because compressed data alone doesn't allow you to deal with new concept and theories? You think a data compression algorithm could have invented the atomic bomb?
mplewis 3y ago
Are you serious? Go outside.

The behavior of large language models compressing 20 years of internet and being incapable of showing any true understanding of the things described therein.

FredPret 3y ago
A human also compresses many years of experience into one conversation. Does this reflect true understanding of the things described? Only the human doing the talking can know, and even that is on shaky ground. (if you don't understand something, will you always realize this? You have to know it a little bit to judge your own competence).
- namaria 3y ago
  We compress data from many senses and can use that to interactively build inner models and filters for the data stream. The experience of psychedelics such as psylocibin and lsd can be summarized as disabling some of these filters. The deep dream trick google did a while back was a good illustration of hallucinations and also seen in some symptoms of schizophrenia. In my view that shows we are simulating some brain data processing functions. Results from the systems conducting these simulations are very far from the capabilities of humans but help shed light into how we work. Conflating these systems with the full cognitive range of human understanding is disingenuous at best.
  - FredPret 3y ago
    It clearly can't have human understanding without being a human. But that doesn't mean it can't have any understanding. You can represent every word in English in a vector database; this isn't how humans understand words, but it's not nothing and might be better in some ways. Fish swim, submarines sail.
  - mistermann 3y ago
    > The experience of psychedelics such as psylocibin and lsd can be summarized as disabling some of these filters. I was thinking last night about where (during the trip) the certainty aspect of the "realer than reality" sensation comes from... The theory I came up with is that the certainty comes from the delta between the two experiences, as opposed to (solely) the psychedelic experience itself. This assumes that one's read on normal reality at the time remains largely intact, which I believe is (often) the case. Further investigation is needed, I'm working from several years old memories.
CamperBob2 3y ago
At some point, we'll have to define "true understanding." Now seems like a good time to start thinking about it.
- namaria 3y ago
  If a person could talk cogently about something for a minute or two before descending into incoherent mumbling would you say they have true understanding of the things they said in that minute?
  - CamperBob2 3y ago
    If so, you'll have to credit ChatGPT4 with the ability to do just that.
    - namaria 3y ago
      Funny how you ask a sharp question and suddenly people answer "ha check mate". Two replies and two fast claims of winning the argument in response but not one honest answer.
      - CamperBob2 3y ago
        Did you have an actual point to make?
  - zo1 3y ago
    Sounds like every debate and argument I've ever had. You push and prod their argument for a few sentences back and forth and before you know it they start getting aggressive in their responses. Probably because they know they will soon devolve into a complete hallucinatory mess.
    - namaria 3y ago
      Devolving into accusing me of aggression and implying I'm incapable of understanding the conversation for asking you a question sounds like you're the one avoiding it.
int_19h 3y ago
There are many context in which it does show "true understanding", though, as evidenced by the ability to make new conclusions. Whether it has enough understanding is a separate question. Why should we treat the concept as a binary, when it's clearly not the case even for ourselves? These models we have now are ultimately still toy-sized. Why is it surprising that their "compression" of 20 years of Internet is so lossy?

staticman2 3y ago

Why would anyone think otherwise?

Groxx 3y ago

Ignoring where I personally draw my line in the sand: people claiming they're the same have literally only failed in demonstrating it, so it's not much of a scientific debate. It's a philosophy or dogma. It may be correct. Results are far from conclusive, or even supportive depending on interpretation.

maximus-decimus 3y ago

Because compressed data alone doesn't allow you to deal with new concept and theories? You think a data compression algorithm could have invented the atomic bomb?

mplewis 3y ago

Are you serious? Go outside.