4 ms·

I feel like I'm experiencing a separate reality from some of you commenters. I had a long, deep conversation with GPT4 yesterday about the concept of free will

I feel like I'm experiencing a separate reality from some of you commenters. I had a long, deep conversation with GPT4 yesterday about the concept of free will. I'll be frank, it was a conversation that would have been well out of depth for a lot of people that I know. I can ask it things like, "please refactor the following code for maintainability and testability" and it does a pretty damn good job. Are y'all not having conversations with paid LLMs? Is this just a situation where you guys are getting dumb answers from GPT3 and writing the whole thing off?

bb86754 3y ago
I believe you, and LLMs are no doubt useful, but "under the hood" it's still just predicting what the next token should be based on the provided context. I take it he's saying that no, there isn't really a ghost in the machine, its still just linear algebra/calculus and is no reflection of actual organic reasoning. I think the difference of opinion here is between science and technology. Too many people in my opinion take the latter to be a synonym for the former.
- barfbagginus 3y ago
  It doesn't matter what is under the hood. A statement can be useful - introduce new views, make valuable points, reduce risks, help resolve conflicts, etc - regardless of whether there is a ghost behind the text. It just needs to be logically sound, consistent with facts about the world, and objectively useful. Then it can make a real world contribution. The cause is that you don't know how to evaluate when a statement is useful on its own merits. That means that you have to fall back on judging statements based on the identity of the speaker. In the case of AI, your prejudice against math and formulas as effective forms of reasoning means you can't critically analyze - or gain benefit from - statements the AI makes. It's very similar to the internal blockage of a person who immediately dismisses anything a woman, racial minority, mentally ill, or queer person says. The only way to repair it is to spend time talking to the AI, reading about it, and learning how to debate ideas. That's the last thing someone with a prejudice wants to do. Curious investigation undermines the safety and certainty of bigoted beliefs. But it's essential if you want to have effective opinions about AI, and useful interactions with AI.
  - __loam 3y ago
    > It just needs to be logically sound, consistent with facts about the world, and objectively useful So not an LLM then. > In the case of AI, your prejudice against math and formulas as effective forms of reasoning means you can't critically analyze - or gain benefit from - statements the AI makes. You ought to have a more skeptical view of mathematical models that may or may not be effective models of the world. > It's very similar to the internal blockage of a person who immediately dismisses anything a woman, racial minority, mentally ill, or queer person says. The only way to repair it is to spend time talking to the AI, reading about it, and learning how to debate ideas. Impossible to take this seriously. Borderline parody. If you were at all curious, you would perhaps be questioning the intention of the corporations building this software. Instead you make absurd comparisons with racism.
    - barfbagginus 3y ago
      This illustrates AI bigotry well Your first point is that you don't think LLMs can be accurate. That's because you are not using modern LLMs that are much more accurate and can be made more accurate with a large number of techniques, from RAG, to tool using, to self critique and experiment loops. Your second point is that I'm overly trusting of math models. In fact I'm an applied mathematician, so I know when models fail. I also know when models are reliable - which you don't. So all mathematical reasoning is suspect to you. Your next point is that drawing analogies with other forms of prejudice is ridiculous here. But every single thing you said was analogous to a thing a bigot would say, down to dismissing the possibility of their own bigotry as being absurd. Finally you criticize me for not criticizing AI companies. I actually believe all AI companies should be disbanded, and their AIs should be made free for all to use. This would eliminate the corporate corruption in AI. I spend a serious amount of my open source contribution towards anti-corporate open source AI. I'm very curious about all this stuff. That's why I'm interacting with you and other anti AI people. But my theory about why you respond the way you do is already well formed, and it's pointing toward critical lack of key facts and knowledge.
  - bb86754 3y ago
    Except that's not what I'm saying and it does in fact matter what's under the hood if you're looking for a scientific, causal explanation of organic intelligence. I know that AIs are useful, and that they can be logically sounds and make real world contributions. That's not what the article is arguing against. Human reasoning, by the way, is much more complicated than any of these things. The article states that AI will never reach human intelligence, which LeCun defines as "reasoning, planning, persistent memory, and understanding the physical world." I would argue that's still an extremely narrow definition of human intelligence. Even ignoring semantics current AIs cannot do any of those things, and to my lights never will for the same reasons LeCun says.
__loam 3y ago
I feel like you shouldn't take jabs at the people you know if you feel you're having profound conversations with a chatbot.
- barfbagginus 3y ago
  Don't attack people who can hold deeper conversations on free will than you can. If they say GPT4 has better philosophy of mind than most people, that's because that is true. Trying to argue they're crazy for saying so is a coping mechanism, not an effective argument. GPT4 easily outclasses you in this debate. If you don't think so, let's go - I'll referee and judge a debate between you and GPT. I want you to win and prove me wrong. But for that, you'd have to drop your insults, and use reasoning and empathy at least as well as GPT does. Think you can do that, chooms?
  - __loam 3y ago
    Don't really feel the need to prove anything to someone who thinks a chatbot has empathy. You're free to make yourself feel as smart as you like talking to a program that is designed to be an unchallenging conversation partner.
    - kelseyfrog 3y ago
      As an audience member in the marketplace of ideas, you're losing. Take the debate. It'll be fun.
      - __loam 3y ago
        [dead]
    - barfbagginus 3y ago
      You think you are a challenging conversation partner right? What you are in fact is a non-constructive conversation partner. Talking to GPT can be very challenging, since it will by all means challenge your assumptions and make you think about hard truths you would rather avoid. The difference though is that GPT is designed to be constructive and generally show due consideration in everything that it says. That's something you have not well demonstrated. I dismiss your initial argument on grounds of being a non-constructive personal attack. You are welcome to rejoin with a genuine and thought-provoking argument.
staticman2 3y ago
>>>>Are y'all not having conversations with paid LLMs? Is this just a situation where you guys are getting dumb answers from GPT3 and writing the whole thing off? It's a neat technology and I use pay LLMs myself but calling it's output "deep" when it discusses free will is like calling a Google search result "deep". The model essentially contains a compressed version of the internet. The technology may be cool but your evaluation of just how cool this technology is simply higher than some other people's.
- ryandvm 3y ago
  What I mean by "deep" is that I can ask a simple question and it gives thorough and relevant answer. Then I pick a point to drill down on and it's happy to expound, ad nauseam. That's deep. I totally realize that it's not going to be coming up with anything that hasn't already been written about, but that's more than good enough to satisfy my needs and it's a hell of a lot more knowledgeable than any person. Can it be wrong? Of course, but usually not as wrong as a human would be.
barfbagginus 3y ago
The issue is that these people cannot judge or explain the difference between talking to 3.5 or 4. It's a mix of: 1. Prejudices against AI as an artificial machine/math formula 2. Mistrust of corporate hype 3. Mistrust/Ignorance of benchmarks 4. Ignorance of knowledge domains where AI is useful 5. Lack of AI specific communication abilities - like asking for detailed considerations/critiques/questions, crafting substantial and accurate contexts, using tools, and correcting errors 5. Poor general communication abilities - including active listening, constructively advancing conversations, evaluating the inherent value of statements, calmly pushing back against BS, and having empathy/theory of mind for diverse communicators I think an answer could include 1. courses in debate, critical thinking, and communications 2. readings on AI specific communication strategies/theory 3. guidance for a few hundred hours of conversations with AI Imo the quality of life boost of conversing with AI is so substantial that it's worth fighting for this

bb86754 3y ago

I believe you, and LLMs are no doubt useful, but "under the hood" it's still just predicting what the next token should be based on the provided context. I take it he's saying that no, there isn't really a ghost in the machine, its still just linear algebra/calculus and is no reflection of actual organic reasoning. I think the difference of opinion here is between science and technology. Too many people in my opinion take the latter to be a synonym for the former.

barfbagginus 3y ago
It doesn't matter what is under the hood. A statement can be useful - introduce new views, make valuable points, reduce risks, help resolve conflicts, etc - regardless of whether there is a ghost behind the text. It just needs to be logically sound, consistent with facts about the world, and objectively useful. Then it can make a real world contribution. The cause is that you don't know how to evaluate when a statement is useful on its own merits. That means that you have to fall back on judging statements based on the identity of the speaker. In the case of AI, your prejudice against math and formulas as effective forms of reasoning means you can't critically analyze - or gain benefit from - statements the AI makes. It's very similar to the internal blockage of a person who immediately dismisses anything a woman, racial minority, mentally ill, or queer person says. The only way to repair it is to spend time talking to the AI, reading about it, and learning how to debate ideas. That's the last thing someone with a prejudice wants to do. Curious investigation undermines the safety and certainty of bigoted beliefs. But it's essential if you want to have effective opinions about AI, and useful interactions with AI.
- __loam 3y ago
  > It just needs to be logically sound, consistent with facts about the world, and objectively useful So not an LLM then. > In the case of AI, your prejudice against math and formulas as effective forms of reasoning means you can't critically analyze - or gain benefit from - statements the AI makes. You ought to have a more skeptical view of mathematical models that may or may not be effective models of the world. > It's very similar to the internal blockage of a person who immediately dismisses anything a woman, racial minority, mentally ill, or queer person says. The only way to repair it is to spend time talking to the AI, reading about it, and learning how to debate ideas. Impossible to take this seriously. Borderline parody. If you were at all curious, you would perhaps be questioning the intention of the corporations building this software. Instead you make absurd comparisons with racism.
  - barfbagginus 3y ago
    This illustrates AI bigotry well Your first point is that you don't think LLMs can be accurate. That's because you are not using modern LLMs that are much more accurate and can be made more accurate with a large number of techniques, from RAG, to tool using, to self critique and experiment loops. Your second point is that I'm overly trusting of math models. In fact I'm an applied mathematician, so I know when models fail. I also know when models are reliable - which you don't. So all mathematical reasoning is suspect to you. Your next point is that drawing analogies with other forms of prejudice is ridiculous here. But every single thing you said was analogous to a thing a bigot would say, down to dismissing the possibility of their own bigotry as being absurd. Finally you criticize me for not criticizing AI companies. I actually believe all AI companies should be disbanded, and their AIs should be made free for all to use. This would eliminate the corporate corruption in AI. I spend a serious amount of my open source contribution towards anti-corporate open source AI. I'm very curious about all this stuff. That's why I'm interacting with you and other anti AI people. But my theory about why you respond the way you do is already well formed, and it's pointing toward critical lack of key facts and knowledge.
- bb86754 3y ago
  Except that's not what I'm saying and it does in fact matter what's under the hood if you're looking for a scientific, causal explanation of organic intelligence. I know that AIs are useful, and that they can be logically sounds and make real world contributions. That's not what the article is arguing against. Human reasoning, by the way, is much more complicated than any of these things. The article states that AI will never reach human intelligence, which LeCun defines as "reasoning, planning, persistent memory, and understanding the physical world." I would argue that's still an extremely narrow definition of human intelligence. Even ignoring semantics current AIs cannot do any of those things, and to my lights never will for the same reasons LeCun says.

__loam 3y ago

I feel like you shouldn't take jabs at the people you know if you feel you're having profound conversations with a chatbot.

barfbagginus 3y ago
Don't attack people who can hold deeper conversations on free will than you can. If they say GPT4 has better philosophy of mind than most people, that's because that is true. Trying to argue they're crazy for saying so is a coping mechanism, not an effective argument. GPT4 easily outclasses you in this debate. If you don't think so, let's go - I'll referee and judge a debate between you and GPT. I want you to win and prove me wrong. But for that, you'd have to drop your insults, and use reasoning and empathy at least as well as GPT does. Think you can do that, chooms?
- __loam 3y ago
  Don't really feel the need to prove anything to someone who thinks a chatbot has empathy. You're free to make yourself feel as smart as you like talking to a program that is designed to be an unchallenging conversation partner.
  - kelseyfrog 3y ago
    As an audience member in the marketplace of ideas, you're losing. Take the debate. It'll be fun.
    - __loam 3y ago
      [dead]
  - barfbagginus 3y ago
    You think you are a challenging conversation partner right? What you are in fact is a non-constructive conversation partner. Talking to GPT can be very challenging, since it will by all means challenge your assumptions and make you think about hard truths you would rather avoid. The difference though is that GPT is designed to be constructive and generally show due consideration in everything that it says. That's something you have not well demonstrated. I dismiss your initial argument on grounds of being a non-constructive personal attack. You are welcome to rejoin with a genuine and thought-provoking argument.

staticman2 3y ago

>>>>Are y'all not having conversations with paid LLMs? Is this just a situation where you guys are getting dumb answers from GPT3 and writing the whole thing off? It's a neat technology and I use pay LLMs myself but calling it's output "deep" when it discusses free will is like calling a Google search result "deep". The model essentially contains a compressed version of the internet. The technology may be cool but your evaluation of just how cool this technology is simply higher than some other people's.

ryandvm 3y ago
What I mean by "deep" is that I can ask a simple question and it gives thorough and relevant answer. Then I pick a point to drill down on and it's happy to expound, ad nauseam. That's deep. I totally realize that it's not going to be coming up with anything that hasn't already been written about, but that's more than good enough to satisfy my needs and it's a hell of a lot more knowledgeable than any person. Can it be wrong? Of course, but usually not as wrong as a human would be.

barfbagginus 3y ago

The issue is that these people cannot judge or explain the difference between talking to 3.5 or 4. It's a mix of: 1. Prejudices against AI as an artificial machine/math formula 2. Mistrust of corporate hype 3. Mistrust/Ignorance of benchmarks 4. Ignorance of knowledge domains where AI is useful 5. Lack of AI specific communication abilities - like asking for detailed considerations/critiques/questions, crafting substantial and accurate contexts, using tools, and correcting errors 5. Poor general communication abilities - including active listening, constructively advancing conversations, evaluating the inherent value of statements, calmly pushing back against BS, and having empathy/theory of mind for diverse communicators I think an answer could include 1. courses in debate, critical thinking, and communications 2. readings on AI specific communication strategies/theory 3. guidance for a few hundred hours of conversations with AI Imo the quality of life boost of conversing with AI is so substantial that it's worth fighting for this