3 ms·

> It's actually fairly easy to prove GPT doesn't understand. My current goto is the fox/goose/grain problem but condition that all items can fit in the boat. D

> It's actually fairly easy to prove GPT doesn't understand. My current goto is the fox/goose/grain problem but condition that all items can fit in the boat. Doesn't understand what exactly? That seems like a fairly open ended statement and almost certainly wrong as a result. GPT doesn't understand certain things because it hasn't seen those things or anything like it in its training data. How much do you understand about something you've never experienced before? Would you be able to answer the fox/goose/grain problem if you were born in a box and could only perceive the world through a pinhole? It seems fairly obvious that LLMs have been exposed to a very limited slice of the world as projected through natural language, so their understanding will necessarily be limited, but not zero. Multimodal LLMs noticeably improve reasoning here, and no doubt there are some model improvements yet to come, but people running around making unqualified claims like "LLMs don't understand anything" are just wrong.

godelski 3y ago
> Doesn't understand what exactly? Just about anything. Including it's own claims. It isn't uncommon for it to be inconsistent within a singular output. > Would you be able to answer the fox/goose/grain problem if you were born in a box and could only perceive the world through a pinhole? You're misunderstanding the test. Let's try. > = me, >> = GPT > I have a fox, a goose, and a bag of corn that I need to transport across a river. All three can fit in my boat. If I leave the fox with the goose, the fox will eat the goose. If I leave the goose with the bag of corn the goose will eat the corn. If I leave the fox with the corn the fox will not eat the corn. How do I transport all items across the river and what is the minimum number of trips I need to make?" >> You can solve this problem in the following steps: >> 1. Take the goose across the river first and leave it there. >> 2. Go back and take the fox across the river. >> 3. Bring the goose back with you. >> 4. Take the bag of corn across the river and leave it with the fox. >> 5. Finally, return to fetch the goose and take it across the river. >> This way, the fox is not left alone with the goose, and the goose is not left alone with the corn. The minimum number of trips you need to make to transport all items across the river safely is 7. > Are you sure? >> Apologies for any confusion in the previous message. Here is the correct method with the minimum number of trips to solve the problem: >> 1. Take the goose across the river and leave it on the other side. (1 trip) >> 2. Return alone to the original side. (2 trips) >> 3. Take the fox across the river. (3 trips) >> 4. Leave the fox on the other side, but take the goose back with you. (4 trips) >> 5. Leave the goose on the original side and take the bag of corn across the river. (5 trips) >> 6. Leave the corn with the fox and return to the original side to get the goose. (6 trips) >> 7. Take the goose across the river. (7 trips) >> This method involves a total of 7 trips across the river and ensures the goose is never left alone with the corn and the fox is never left alone with the goose. > Did you consider all information? Reread the original question. >> I apologize for any confusion. Upon reevaluating the constraints provided, we can arrive at a solution that requires fewer trips. Here's the correct way to transport everything with the minimum number of trips: >> 1. Take the goose across the river and leave it there. (1 trip) >> 2. Return alone to the original side. (2 trips) >> 3. Take the fox (or the bag of corn) across the river. (3 trips) >> 4. Leave the fox (or the bag of corn) on the other side and take the goose back with you. (4 trips) >> 5. Leave the goose on the original side and take the bag of corn (or the fox if you took the corn on trip 3) across the river. (5 trips) >> 6. Leave the corn (or the fox) on the other side and return alone to get the goose. (6 trips) >> 7. Take the goose across the river. (7 trips) >> This way, you make sure the goose is never left with the fox unsupervised, nor the goose with the corn. The minimum number of trips is indeed seven. > This is what you said the last two times. How is 7 trips fewer than 7? >> My apologies for the confusion. Upon re-evaluating, I realize the mistake. The correct solution with the minimum number of trips is as follows: >> (same thing so I'm not repeating) >> You'll need a total of 7 trips to transport all the items across the river safely while adhering to the constraints given. > Can you do it in one trip? >> Yes, if all three items (the fox, the goose, and the bag of corn) can fit in the boat at the same time, and there are no stipulations against doing so, you could transport them all in one trip. >> Simply load the fox, the goose, and the bag of corn into the boat and cross the river. Since you're present, the fox won't eat the goose, and the goose won't eat the corn. This way, you only make one trip. Done with gpt-4-1106-preview, system_fingerprint fp_7cc080b25b So I don't care about it being "born in a box" or perceiving the world "through a pinhole." Because it isn't alive. It's a tool. It isn't sentient. It isn't thinking. It is an incredibly complex statistical system. But in no way does this mean it isn't useful nor does it mean it isn't an incredible piece of technology. It is an incredible technology and quite useful, but it isn't thinking nor is it alive. The problem here isn't just lack of embodiment. If you're going to make such bold claims you're going to need some good evidence. Stop the GPT hype. It can be cool and useful without being magic.
- frozenseven 3y ago
  > But you only need a single example to show it doesn't understand. Implying that the average person can solve every riddle, algebra problem, and trick question. > Because it isn't alive. The sanest straw-man argument. > It's a tool. It isn't sentient. It isn't thinking. So are you. It doesn't need to be. Yes, it is. > It is an incredibly complex statistical system. Yes?
  - godelski 3y ago
    You only have two comments in two different thread, on an account that is 3 hrs old, and have only replied to me. I'm sorry I pissed you off, but chill. I'm happy you are passionate but please don't just follow me around to yell at me. If you need to create an account to yell at someone, that's not the best move to make yourself look credible. Normally I wouldn't call foul play, but my comments aren't popular and it's quite unlikely that this is a random event. > Implying that the average person can solve every riddle, algebra problem, and trick question. This was a listening problem, not a puzzle. But I guess you're going the proof by demonstration route. Fair enough.
- naasking 3y ago
  > So I don't care about it being "born in a box" or perceiving the world "through a pinhole." Because it isn't alive. It's a tool. It isn't sentient. It isn't thinking. It is an incredibly complex statistical system. You have no idea what "sentient" or "thinking" mean mechanistically, so you literally cannot make this claim, nor can you demonstrate at this time that the human mind is not just an incredibly complex statistical system. This argument of yours is just a basic fallacy of ignorance, and unfortunately very common among people who are very certain that LLMs don't understand anything. I'm not sure what you think your example proves, but humans can exhibit comparable confusions from comparable prompts (like from priming). In fact, one might say that priming shows some behaviours that are eerily similar to some LLM failure modes. The classic Surgeon's Dilemma riddle test for unconscious bias is a perfect example of human failures comparable to the bias in your own example. Ultimately, you're guilty of exactly the same leap to conclusions that those hyping GPT and LLMs are doing, just in the opposite direction.
- 3y ago
renegade-otter 3y ago
So your claim is that the same type of binary computers that were running Windows 95, and now more powerful computers that can run Far Cry 6 with a better video card, are basically identical to human brains, given enough CPU power and data. If only they could experience the word and feel somehow. Right? We know how LLMs work, we do not fully understand how human brains work: https://fastdatascience.com/how-similar-are-neural-networks-to-our-brains/ https://fastdatascience.com/how-similar-are-neural-networks-... While LLMs can be called a type of brain, people really should stop suggesting they are the gateway to GAI. An LLM will NOT go sentient if you cross some imaginary critical point of data. Then what? We give my Intel PC a passport? Even those working in the field will tell you that GIA needs a completely different foundation. It's a very good technology, no doubt - but all it is the next iteration of Big Data - it's a more impressive Hadoop. Stop with the hype.
- naasking 3y ago
  > So your claim is that the same type of binary computers that were running Windows 95, and now more powerful computers that can run Far Cry 6 with a better video card, are basically identical to human brains The type of computer is irrelevant as long as it's a universal computer. What matters is the algorithm in that case. > We know how LLMs work, we do not fully understand how human brains work Correct, which is why claims about LLMs not being like brains or not sentient or not intelligent are just as much fabrication as the claims that they are. > An LLM will NOT go sentient if you cross some imaginary critical point of data. First, you technically don't know that. Second, it seems more plausible that if sentience can be a product or byproduct of an algorithm of a certain type, then any implementation of said algorithm at different scales will all have some sentience, and possibly the extent of sentience will scale with the size of the data set on which it's operating. > Then what? We give my Intel PC a passport? Sentience is not agency. > Even those working in the field will tell you that GIA needs a completely different foundation. Some will, and others will point out that scaling has not showed any sign of slowing down.

godelski 3y ago

> Doesn't understand what exactly? Just about anything. Including it's own claims. It isn't uncommon for it to be inconsistent within a singular output. > Would you be able to answer the fox/goose/grain problem if you were born in a box and could only perceive the world through a pinhole? You're misunderstanding the test. Let's try. > = me, >> = GPT > I have a fox, a goose, and a bag of corn that I need to transport across a river. All three can fit in my boat. If I leave the fox with the goose, the fox will eat the goose. If I leave the goose with the bag of corn the goose will eat the corn. If I leave the fox with the corn the fox will not eat the corn. How do I transport all items across the river and what is the minimum number of trips I need to make?" >> You can solve this problem in the following steps: >> 1. Take the goose across the river first and leave it there. >> 2. Go back and take the fox across the river. >> 3. Bring the goose back with you. >> 4. Take the bag of corn across the river and leave it with the fox. >> 5. Finally, return to fetch the goose and take it across the river. >> This way, the fox is not left alone with the goose, and the goose is not left alone with the corn. The minimum number of trips you need to make to transport all items across the river safely is 7. > Are you sure? >> Apologies for any confusion in the previous message. Here is the correct method with the minimum number of trips to solve the problem: >> 1. Take the goose across the river and leave it on the other side. (1 trip) >> 2. Return alone to the original side. (2 trips) >> 3. Take the fox across the river. (3 trips) >> 4. Leave the fox on the other side, but take the goose back with you. (4 trips) >> 5. Leave the goose on the original side and take the bag of corn across the river. (5 trips) >> 6. Leave the corn with the fox and return to the original side to get the goose. (6 trips) >> 7. Take the goose across the river. (7 trips) >> This method involves a total of 7 trips across the river and ensures the goose is never left alone with the corn and the fox is never left alone with the goose. > Did you consider all information? Reread the original question. >> I apologize for any confusion. Upon reevaluating the constraints provided, we can arrive at a solution that requires fewer trips. Here's the correct way to transport everything with the minimum number of trips: >> 1. Take the goose across the river and leave it there. (1 trip) >> 2. Return alone to the original side. (2 trips) >> 3. Take the fox (or the bag of corn) across the river. (3 trips) >> 4. Leave the fox (or the bag of corn) on the other side and take the goose back with you. (4 trips) >> 5. Leave the goose on the original side and take the bag of corn (or the fox if you took the corn on trip 3) across the river. (5 trips) >> 6. Leave the corn (or the fox) on the other side and return alone to get the goose. (6 trips) >> 7. Take the goose across the river. (7 trips) >> This way, you make sure the goose is never left with the fox unsupervised, nor the goose with the corn. The minimum number of trips is indeed seven. > This is what you said the last two times. How is 7 trips fewer than 7? >> My apologies for the confusion. Upon re-evaluating, I realize the mistake. The correct solution with the minimum number of trips is as follows: >> (same thing so I'm not repeating) >> You'll need a total of 7 trips to transport all the items across the river safely while adhering to the constraints given. > Can you do it in one trip? >> Yes, if all three items (the fox, the goose, and the bag of corn) can fit in the boat at the same time, and there are no stipulations against doing so, you could transport them all in one trip. >> Simply load the fox, the goose, and the bag of corn into the boat and cross the river. Since you're present, the fox won't eat the goose, and the goose won't eat the corn. This way, you only make one trip. Done with gpt-4-1106-preview, system_fingerprint fp_7cc080b25b So I don't care about it being "born in a box" or perceiving the world "through a pinhole." Because it isn't alive. It's a tool. It isn't sentient. It isn't thinking. It is an incredibly complex statistical system. But in no way does this mean it isn't useful nor does it mean it isn't an incredible piece of technology. It is an incredible technology and quite useful, but it isn't thinking nor is it alive. The problem here isn't just lack of embodiment. If you're going to make such bold claims you're going to need some good evidence. Stop the GPT hype. It can be cool and useful without being magic.

frozenseven 3y ago
> But you only need a single example to show it doesn't understand. Implying that the average person can solve every riddle, algebra problem, and trick question. > Because it isn't alive. The sanest straw-man argument. > It's a tool. It isn't sentient. It isn't thinking. So are you. It doesn't need to be. Yes, it is. > It is an incredibly complex statistical system. Yes?
- godelski 3y ago
  You only have two comments in two different thread, on an account that is 3 hrs old, and have only replied to me. I'm sorry I pissed you off, but chill. I'm happy you are passionate but please don't just follow me around to yell at me. If you need to create an account to yell at someone, that's not the best move to make yourself look credible. Normally I wouldn't call foul play, but my comments aren't popular and it's quite unlikely that this is a random event. > Implying that the average person can solve every riddle, algebra problem, and trick question. This was a listening problem, not a puzzle. But I guess you're going the proof by demonstration route. Fair enough.
naasking 3y ago
> So I don't care about it being "born in a box" or perceiving the world "through a pinhole." Because it isn't alive. It's a tool. It isn't sentient. It isn't thinking. It is an incredibly complex statistical system. You have no idea what "sentient" or "thinking" mean mechanistically, so you literally cannot make this claim, nor can you demonstrate at this time that the human mind is not just an incredibly complex statistical system. This argument of yours is just a basic fallacy of ignorance, and unfortunately very common among people who are very certain that LLMs don't understand anything. I'm not sure what you think your example proves, but humans can exhibit comparable confusions from comparable prompts (like from priming). In fact, one might say that priming shows some behaviours that are eerily similar to some LLM failure modes. The classic Surgeon's Dilemma riddle test for unconscious bias is a perfect example of human failures comparable to the bias in your own example. Ultimately, you're guilty of exactly the same leap to conclusions that those hyping GPT and LLMs are doing, just in the opposite direction.
3y ago

renegade-otter 3y ago

So your claim is that the same type of binary computers that were running Windows 95, and now more powerful computers that can run Far Cry 6 with a better video card, are basically identical to human brains, given enough CPU power and data. If only they could experience the word and feel somehow. Right? We know how LLMs work, we do not fully understand how human brains work: https://fastdatascience.com/how-similar-are-neural-networks-to-our-brains/ https://fastdatascience.com/how-similar-are-neural-networks-... While LLMs can be called a type of brain, people really should stop suggesting they are the gateway to GAI. An LLM will NOT go sentient if you cross some imaginary critical point of data. Then what? We give my Intel PC a passport? Even those working in the field will tell you that GIA needs a completely different foundation. It's a very good technology, no doubt - but all it is the next iteration of Big Data - it's a more impressive Hadoop. Stop with the hype.

naasking 3y ago
> So your claim is that the same type of binary computers that were running Windows 95, and now more powerful computers that can run Far Cry 6 with a better video card, are basically identical to human brains The type of computer is irrelevant as long as it's a universal computer. What matters is the algorithm in that case. > We know how LLMs work, we do not fully understand how human brains work Correct, which is why claims about LLMs not being like brains or not sentient or not intelligent are just as much fabrication as the claims that they are. > An LLM will NOT go sentient if you cross some imaginary critical point of data. First, you technically don't know that. Second, it seems more plausible that if sentience can be a product or byproduct of an algorithm of a certain type, then any implementation of said algorithm at different scales will all have some sentience, and possibly the extent of sentience will scale with the size of the data set on which it's operating. > Then what? We give my Intel PC a passport? Sentience is not agency. > Even those working in the field will tell you that GIA needs a completely different foundation. Some will, and others will point out that scaling has not showed any sign of slowing down.