3 ms·
In order to do that effectively, an LLM has to itself have understanding. At a certain point, we end up in a metaphysical argument about whether a machine that
by DiogenesKynikos 3y ago
In order to do that effectively, an LLM has to itself have understanding. At a certain point, we end up in a metaphysical argument about whether a machine that is capable of responding as if it had understanding actually does have understanding. It ends up being a meaningless discussion.
- Karellen 3y agoI am reminded of Feynman's story about teaching physics in one Brazil university, one semester, a few decades ago: http://v.cx/2010/04/feynman-brazil-education http://v.cx/2010/04/feynman-brazil-education The students learned to repeat the text of the books, without "understanding" what the books were describing. I'm sure this says something about one side or the other of this conundrum, but I'm not sure which. :-)
- cultureswitch 3y agoThat is the argument we're having though. The central claim is that a machine which answers exactly the same thing a human would answer given the same input does not have understanding, while the human does. This claim is religious, not scientific. In this worldview, "understanding" is a property of humans which can't be observed but exists nonetheless. It's like claiming humans have a soul.