4 ms·

LLMs don’t come up with new derivative solutions to problems in programming land, from what I’ve seen. They always try to stick to common solutions, probably b

by dartos 3y ago

LLMs don’t come up with new derivative solutions to problems in programming land, from what I’ve seen. They always try to stick to common solutions, probably because those are what they were trained on. Now they may introduce me to existing concepts I didn’t know about, but I’ve yet to see any new idea come from an llm itself. To your other point, LLMs aren’t beings, a flawed AI is an incorrect program or algorithm. Entertaining, maybe, useful in some contexts, sure. But they’re not beings. nothing about statistical models are like people. I think it’s dangerous to use such fuzzy conflating language with regards to AI.

vidarh 3y ago
Most humans don't come up with new solutions to problems with any regularity. > nothing about statistical models are like people. As if we're not behaving like statistical models. Our decision-making is so fuzzy and probabilistic that trying to get us to stick to fixed sets of rules consistently is one of the things humanity spends the most time inventing systems to try to handle, and keep failing at. We don't even know a consistent way of achieving it for extremely basic things. We can't keep ourselves to rules we set ourselves with any consistency.
- dartos 3y ago
  You can imagine human behavior is like a stochastic parrot (the name of your argument,) but that’s, again, a gross oversimplification of the human experience. I don’t really feel like having the stochastic parrot debate again, but look it up. We’re more than parrots.
  - vidarh 3y ago
    The notion of a stochastic parrot is just a subset of this. It is what I'm arguing against, not for, on the basis that talking about "just" a statistical model is meaningless exactly because something being a statistical model does not imply it is just a stochastical parrot. As such it's a wildly misleading claim to make. Yes, we're more than parrots, but that does not mean we can be described equally validly as "statistical models". Suggesting something is "just" a statistical model is a statement that is close to semantically void. It tells us near nothing about the computational limits - up or down - of something. Even a very simple system for running a statistical model with a loop around it providing IO can be made Turing complete.

by dartos 3y ago

vidarh 3y ago

Most humans don't come up with new solutions to problems with any regularity. > nothing about statistical models are like people. As if we're not behaving like statistical models. Our decision-making is so fuzzy and probabilistic that trying to get us to stick to fixed sets of rules consistently is one of the things humanity spends the most time inventing systems to try to handle, and keep failing at. We don't even know a consistent way of achieving it for extremely basic things. We can't keep ourselves to rules we set ourselves with any consistency.

dartos 3y ago
You can imagine human behavior is like a stochastic parrot (the name of your argument,) but that’s, again, a gross oversimplification of the human experience. I don’t really feel like having the stochastic parrot debate again, but look it up. We’re more than parrots.
- vidarh 3y ago
  The notion of a stochastic parrot is just a subset of this. It is what I'm arguing against, not for, on the basis that talking about "just" a statistical model is meaningless exactly because something being a statistical model does not imply it is just a stochastical parrot. As such it's a wildly misleading claim to make. Yes, we're more than parrots, but that does not mean we can be described equally validly as "statistical models". Suggesting something is "just" a statistical model is a statement that is close to semantically void. It tells us near nothing about the computational limits - up or down - of something. Even a very simple system for running a statistical model with a loop around it providing IO can be made Turing complete.