4 ms·

>>> I don't see uncertainty of intelligence as a property of an LLM as being equivalent to certainty of weather control as a effect of a forecast. GTA 5 is a s

>>> I don't see uncertainty of intelligence as a property of an LLM as being equivalent to certainty of weather control as a effect of a forecast. GTA 5 is a simulation. Do you expect to be arrested out side your front door for the car you stole in game? Weather forecasting is a simulation, it tells you what the weather will look like in the next few days. It gets better as we get more sensors, collect more data and build more accurate models based on those two factors. It will never leap to weather. Language forecasting (because this is what an LLM is) is a simulation. It tells you what the next token (word) will be based on what came before it. It gets better as we collect more data and hone and refine these models. It will never make the leap to intelligence. >> To say LLMs are not intelligent is easier if we agree humans spend a good deal of time being unintelligent. To say that LLMs are intelligent means that language is a requirement for intelligence. Thats some fairly magical thinking... buy any sufficently advanced technology...

theendisney 3y ago
Not sure if it counts but there is a police chase video online some place with a guy on drugs who claims he thought he was playing gta. The way he throws people out of their vehicle and crashes their car suggests he wasnt lying.
ToValueFunfetti 3y ago
Intelligence breaks the pattern here. A simulated intelligence is intelligent, just as simulated math is math and simulated computers are computers. The point of contention shouldn't be whether LLMs are intelligences or simulated intelligences, but whether they're simulating something else.
- qarl 3y ago
  Right. This is Searle's "a simulated plane won't get you to Japan" argument. That's true. But a simulated calculator is perfectly effective for doing your taxes.
  - ckcheng 3y ago
    Like Searle’s Chinese Room argument [0]? I think a challenge with the simulated-is-real math/calculator argument is that the simulation operates syntactically thru derivation without meaning. E.g. a simulation of ZF set theory cannot tell you the truth value of the Axiom of Choice - because it’s independent of the ZF axioms (it is undecidable in the Gödel incompleteness sense). But “Although originally controversial, the axiom of choice is now used without reservation by most mathematicians” [1] - I guess it’s truth is self-evident semantically. So because of incompleteness, simulated math/calc will always be “missing” something. Of course a LLM will happily say A of C is true (or not) but is it just parroting from the dataset or hallucinating? [0]: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/chinese-room/ https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/chinese-room/ [1]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axiom_of_choice https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axiom_of_choice
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    - qarl 3y ago
      Eh - I'm not really interested in rehashing this old argument. I'm just trying to point out the flaw in Searle's plane analogy.
ben_w 3y ago
> To say that LLMs are intelligent means that language is a requirement for intelligence. Thats some fairly magical thinking... buy any sufficently advanced technology.. When I was a kid, it was the definition of intelligence that separated humans from animals. And there's a reason "dumb" means "mute" and independently "stupid". It may well be an incorrect requirement. It may be a single form of intelligence out of many which happen to correlate in humans, but not in minds created by artifice. But it does have a history.
oezi 3y ago
> Language forecasting (because this is what an LLM is) is a simulation. It tells you what the next token (word) will be based on what came before it. It gets better as we collect more data and hone and refine these models. It will never make the leap to intelligence. Due to quantum theory and chaos theory it is impossible to simulate any system to 100%. Yet, this does not mean it is impossible to design intelligent systems which are indistinguishable from their 'real' counterparts. Maybe we are at the level where a fly can be simulated accurately enough to make a distinction moot, maybe we have enough compute to simulate a mouse. We will get to a point where we can simulate a human brain. It will be indistinguishable from intelligence. I don't think the methodology really matters. In the end everything is compute.

theendisney 3y ago

Not sure if it counts but there is a police chase video online some place with a guy on drugs who claims he thought he was playing gta. The way he throws people out of their vehicle and crashes their car suggests he wasnt lying.

ToValueFunfetti 3y ago

Intelligence breaks the pattern here. A simulated intelligence is intelligent, just as simulated math is math and simulated computers are computers. The point of contention shouldn't be whether LLMs are intelligences or simulated intelligences, but whether they're simulating something else.

qarl 3y ago
Right. This is Searle's "a simulated plane won't get you to Japan" argument. That's true. But a simulated calculator is perfectly effective for doing your taxes.
- ckcheng 3y ago
  Like Searle’s Chinese Room argument [0]? I think a challenge with the simulated-is-real math/calculator argument is that the simulation operates syntactically thru derivation without meaning. E.g. a simulation of ZF set theory cannot tell you the truth value of the Axiom of Choice - because it’s independent of the ZF axioms (it is undecidable in the Gödel incompleteness sense). But “Although originally controversial, the axiom of choice is now used without reservation by most mathematicians” [1] - I guess it’s truth is self-evident semantically. So because of incompleteness, simulated math/calc will always be “missing” something. Of course a LLM will happily say A of C is true (or not) but is it just parroting from the dataset or hallucinating? [0]: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/chinese-room/ https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/chinese-room/ [1]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axiom_of_choice https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axiom_of_choice
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - qarl 3y ago
    Eh - I'm not really interested in rehashing this old argument. I'm just trying to point out the flaw in Searle's plane analogy.

ben_w 3y ago

> To say that LLMs are intelligent means that language is a requirement for intelligence. Thats some fairly magical thinking... buy any sufficently advanced technology.. When I was a kid, it was the definition of intelligence that separated humans from animals. And there's a reason "dumb" means "mute" and independently "stupid". It may well be an incorrect requirement. It may be a single form of intelligence out of many which happen to correlate in humans, but not in minds created by artifice. But it does have a history.

oezi 3y ago

> Language forecasting (because this is what an LLM is) is a simulation. It tells you what the next token (word) will be based on what came before it. It gets better as we collect more data and hone and refine these models. It will never make the leap to intelligence. Due to quantum theory and chaos theory it is impossible to simulate any system to 100%. Yet, this does not mean it is impossible to design intelligent systems which are indistinguishable from their 'real' counterparts. Maybe we are at the level where a fly can be simulated accurately enough to make a distinction moot, maybe we have enough compute to simulate a mouse. We will get to a point where we can simulate a human brain. It will be indistinguishable from intelligence. I don't think the methodology really matters. In the end everything is compute.