5 ms·
The ability to write a novel is different from actually writing a novel. If prediction forms the basis of (at least some forms of) intelligence, intelligence it
by RandomLensman 3y ago
The ability to write a novel is different from actually writing a novel. If prediction forms the basis of (at least some forms of) intelligence, intelligence itself is more than prediction.
- HarHarVeryFunny 3y agoThat's why I say our vocabulary for talking about these things leaves something to be desired - the way we use the word "intelligence" combines both raw/potential ability to do something (prediction), and the experience we have that allows that ability to be utilized. The only way you are going to learn to actually write a novel is by a lot of reading and writing and learning how to write something that provides the experience you hope it to have.
- RandomLensman 3y agoKind of agree. I think, though, trying to shoe-horn intelligence into some evolutionary concepts is tricky because it is easy stack hypotheses there.
- coldtea 3y ago>The ability to write a novel is different from actually writing a novel In what way, except as in begging the question?
- RandomLensman 3y agoWhich LLM will on its own go and write a novel? Also, even for humans, just because you technically know how to write a novel, you might fail at it.
- coldtea 3y ago>Which LLM will on its own go and write a novel? Which human will? We get prompts all the time, it's called sensory input. Instead of "write a noval" it's more like information about literature, life experience, that partner who broke our heart and triggered our writing this personal novel, and so on.
- RandomLensman 3y agoSome people write novels, some don't. Why some people do so we sometimes know, sometimes we don't (maybe they flipped a coin to decide). Some start to write but fail to finish. You have to believe that humans have no free will in a certain way to have them be like an LLM, i.e, every action is externally driven and determined.
- coldtea 3y ago>You have to believe that humans have no free will in a certain way to have them be like an LLM, i.e, every action is externally driven and determined. Free will doesn't have much meaning. If I dont base my action at time t, on their development based on inputs on times before t, what would I base it on? It would be random? Or would there be a small thinking presense inside me that gets information about my current situation and decides "impartially", able to decide in whatever direction, because it wasn't itself entirely determined by my experiences thus far?
- RandomLensman 3y agoRandomness is certainly an option. Ignoring information is an option.
- coldtea 3y ago>Randomness is certainly an option Were would that randomness come from? Which would be the source of that in the universe, for it to occur in the mind? If you mean pseudo-randomness, sure, LLMs employ that too. >Ignoring information is an option. Randomly ignoring information? If so, see above. If you mean intended informed ignoring of information, that's still determined on all the previous inputs.
- RandomLensman 3y agoQuantum mechanics provide for randomness (e.g., radioactive decay) - why wouldn't microscopic randomness occur in the brain or be used by a human in a machine? A universal function approximator isn't enough to access all of nature.