3 ms·

Idt anybody reasonably involved ever claimed it was simulated cognition. It's just really good at predicting the next word. And tbf, human conversation that go

Idt anybody reasonably involved ever claimed it was simulated cognition. It's just really good at predicting the next word. And tbf, human conversation that goes on too long can follow the same pattern, though models are disadvantaged by their context length. Imagine someone asked you to keep talking forever, but every 5 minutes they hit you in the head and you had no memory except from that point onwards. I'm sure I'd sound deranged, too.

canadianfella 3y ago
[dead]
elicksaur 3y ago
> i am a stochastic parrot, and so r u - Sam Altman, CEO of OpenAI https://twitter.com/sama/status/1599471830255177728 https://twitter.com/sama/status/1599471830255177728 But I’m sure he was joking. If he wasn’t, I’m sure he’s not actually reasonably involved. If he is, I’m sure he just didn’t mean that cognition was essentially a stochastic parrot. It’s pretty obvious what the people pushing LLM-style AI think about the human brain.
- fieldcny 3y ago
  This is a wonderful comment, I’m sure he’s also not trying to raise $7T, or if he is it’s not US dollars…
krapp 3y ago
Human beings seem to be hard-wired to equate the appearance of coherent language with evidence of cognition. Even on Hacker News, where people should know better, a lot people seem to believe LLMs are literally sentient and self aware, not simply equivalent to but surpassing human capabilities in every dimension. I mean, I know a lot of that is simply the financial incentives of people whose job it is to push the Overton window of LLMs being recognized as legal beings equivalent to humans so that their training data is no longer subject to claims of copyright infringement (because it's simply "learning as a human mind would") but it also seems there's a deep seated human biological imperative being hacked here. The sociology behind the way people react to LLMs is fascinating.
- dambi0 3y ago
  Can you elaborate on what you mean by appearance in the first sentence? Also cognition. Is this the same as understanding or is thinking a better synonym? Can you think of any examples from before say 2010 where there would be any reason for a human to wonder whether another party engaged in a coherent conversation has any reason to assume they were not engaged with another hunan?

canadianfella 3y ago

[dead]

elicksaur 3y ago

> i am a stochastic parrot, and so r u - Sam Altman, CEO of OpenAI https://twitter.com/sama/status/1599471830255177728 https://twitter.com/sama/status/1599471830255177728 But I’m sure he was joking. If he wasn’t, I’m sure he’s not actually reasonably involved. If he is, I’m sure he just didn’t mean that cognition was essentially a stochastic parrot. It’s pretty obvious what the people pushing LLM-style AI think about the human brain.

fieldcny 3y ago
This is a wonderful comment, I’m sure he’s also not trying to raise $7T, or if he is it’s not US dollars…

krapp 3y ago

Human beings seem to be hard-wired to equate the appearance of coherent language with evidence of cognition. Even on Hacker News, where people should know better, a lot people seem to believe LLMs are literally sentient and self aware, not simply equivalent to but surpassing human capabilities in every dimension. I mean, I know a lot of that is simply the financial incentives of people whose job it is to push the Overton window of LLMs being recognized as legal beings equivalent to humans so that their training data is no longer subject to claims of copyright infringement (because it's simply "learning as a human mind would") but it also seems there's a deep seated human biological imperative being hacked here. The sociology behind the way people react to LLMs is fascinating.

dambi0 3y ago
Can you elaborate on what you mean by appearance in the first sentence? Also cognition. Is this the same as understanding or is thinking a better synonym? Can you think of any examples from before say 2010 where there would be any reason for a human to wonder whether another party engaged in a coherent conversation has any reason to assume they were not engaged with another hunan?