8 ms·

There's an enormous gap between being able to "decode" it and actually understanding what it means. Wittgenstein's quote on lions is still relevant.

currymj 2y ago
a big part of the project is to not just collect whalesong data but also measure what activities the whales physically engage in as they “speak”.
marci 2y ago
Temba, his arms open. Darmok and Jalad at Tanagra.
canjobear 2y ago
Wittgenstein didn't present any evidence.
gessha 2y ago
Reminds me of the Chinese room [1] argument: Does a computer really understand Chinese language if it can respond to Chinese inputs with Chinese outputs? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_room https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_room
- kubanczyk 2y ago
  Isn't a large company more handy model than a "Chinese room"? Hordes of these in practice own our species. They come up with the decisions on carbon footprint, on whether to colonize Mars, on where to shift collective attention. Although these entities are only one of achievements of our culture, for now they dominate on global level. Big achievement. "Consciousness" not strictly needed. Whatever the definition of "consciousness", a big company is driven by a glorified stack of excels and definitely couldn't write Chinese (assuming none of employees does, after Searle). So, running a planet and overriding any individual human is not enough, let's focus on entertaining an individual human with an interesting conversation in Chinese? What do you even seek with that model? /s
- h0l0cube 2y ago
  > Searle's thought experiment begins with this hypothetical premise: suppose that artificial intelligence research has succeeded in constructing a computer that behaves as if it understands Chinese. It takes Chinese characters as input and, by following the instructions of a computer program, produces other Chinese characters, which it presents as output. Suppose, says Searle, that this computer performs its task so convincingly that it comfortably passes the Turing test: it convinces a human Chinese speaker that the program is itself a live Chinese speaker. To all of the questions that the person asks, it makes appropriate responses, such that any Chinese speaker would be convinced that they are talking to another Chinese-speaking human being. > The question Searle wants to answer is this: does the machine literally "understand" Chinese? Or is it merely simulating the ability to understand Chinese? Searle calls the first position "strong AI" and the latter "weak AI". (Emphasis added) If we were to make an analogy to contemporary machine learning, we're talking about the difference between an LLM (with context) and a Markov Chain. 'Understanding' requires novel reuse of recollections. Recollections require memory (i.e. context), and the novel reuse of those recollections require a world model with which to inference.
  - TaylorAlexander 2y ago
    I am personally in favor of the use of the word 'understanding' with LLMs, but it should be noted that many people strongly disagree with that use of the term.
  - Terr_ 2y ago
    You're saying that LLMs meet the stronger definition of "understanding?" I disagree: You're confusing necessary with sufficient. [0] Take the original analogy of a person with an if-then opaque phrase table, and make it a slightly fancier two-step process where they must also compute a score based on recent phrases or words to determine the proper output. So now the system has "memory" and gives better output... But was that sufficient to create understanding? Nope. [0] And perhaps not even necessary, if we consider an operator who does understand Chinese but their short-term memory has been damaged by an injury.
    - h0l0cube 2y ago
perfmode 2y ago
it would be interesting if data mining and embeddings could reveal meaning hidden in the patterns and context.
ubj 2y ago
Good point on the difference between decoding and understanding. The paper "What is it like to be a bat?" [1] comes to mind. We can certainly try to decode the behaviors and language of whales, but understanding their mindset is an entirely different matter. [1]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_Is_It_Like_to_Be_a_Bat%3F https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_Is_It_Like_to_Be_a_Bat%...
yodsanklai 2y ago
Probably that I miss the deepness of this quote, but lions or whales are mammals like us and they must be chatting about their basic needs which we should be able to relate to.
- kombookcha 2y ago
  For Wittgenstein words don't so much express things in themselves, but are deeply integrated in nonspoken contexts and impressions. It's hard enough to really /get/ somebody from a different cultural context, whereas a lion lives in a massively different lifeworld, with a very different body. What does a word like "hungry" mean to you, when your diet is gorging yourself on freshly killed meat every couple of weeks? What does feeling "tired" mean, when you're the size of a bus and sleeping is done in increments of 10 minutes because you must constantly wake and resurface to breathe through a hole in your back? You can use language to gesture at these experiences, but that's different from really knowing what we are talking about. Not that I understand Wittgenstein very well at all, even though it seems like it should be easier than understanding whales and lions ;)
  - krisoft 2y ago
    > It's hard enough to really /get/ somebody from a different cultural context This is such an eye roll statement. The world “really” is the one which does all the work in it. One would say “nah, communication is actually amazing, and through listening to people / reading their words and being attentive one can understand many different cultural contexts”. And whoever wrote the original sentence can always come back and ask “but did you really really understand them”? > What does a word like "hungry" mean to you, when your diet is gorging yourself on freshly killed meat every couple of weeks? I don’t understand the problem here. “Hunger” is the feeling which make you seek out food. If your normal is to gorge yourself full and don’t eat anything for weeks then you are not hungry for most of those weeks and then when you start feeling hungry that is when you start preparing for a new hunt, chasing a herd and so on. We already and in our everyday life understand such differe ces. We know for example that newborns need feeding a lot more frequently than adults, so when they become fussy we ask “is he hungry maybe?” Despite the fact that our own hunger works on a different schedule. We also undestand that when a holocaust survivor describes the deep hunger they suffered from in the camp that is a different feeling than the one you feel 2 hours after lunch when you start thinking about opening a pack of chips. Somehow we “get it”. But do we “realy” get it? Yeah i mean we know that the baby will become more and more fussy the longer it is not fed, and will die eventually. We know that the lion on the hunt will eat us if we look easy enough prey. We understand that people in the camps turned to eat things they would have considered inedible before, and the experience left lasting psychological scars on many of them. And we understand that the person thinking about opening a pack of chips will stop thinking about it if something distracts him/her for a minute. “But do we really really really understand them?” Idk. You tell me what you consider “really really really” understanding anything. Because one can play this game forever. > What does feeling "tired" mean, when you're the size of a bus and sleeping is done in increments of 10 minutes because you must constantly wake and resurface to breathe through a hole in your back? If that is normal for that being then they wouldn’t describe that state of being as tired. It is just their normal. But if something (illness, activity, noises) disturbs their normal which make them seek out more sleep they would call that being tired.

currymj 2y ago

a big part of the project is to not just collect whalesong data but also measure what activities the whales physically engage in as they “speak”.

marci 2y ago

Temba, his arms open. Darmok and Jalad at Tanagra.

canjobear 2y ago

Wittgenstein didn't present any evidence.

gessha 2y ago

Reminds me of the Chinese room [1] argument: Does a computer really understand Chinese language if it can respond to Chinese inputs with Chinese outputs? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_room https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_room

kubanczyk 2y ago
Isn't a large company more handy model than a "Chinese room"? Hordes of these in practice own our species. They come up with the decisions on carbon footprint, on whether to colonize Mars, on where to shift collective attention. Although these entities are only one of achievements of our culture, for now they dominate on global level. Big achievement. "Consciousness" not strictly needed. Whatever the definition of "consciousness", a big company is driven by a glorified stack of excels and definitely couldn't write Chinese (assuming none of employees does, after Searle). So, running a planet and overriding any individual human is not enough, let's focus on entertaining an individual human with an interesting conversation in Chinese? What do you even seek with that model? /s
h0l0cube 2y ago
> Searle's thought experiment begins with this hypothetical premise: suppose that artificial intelligence research has succeeded in constructing a computer that behaves as if it understands Chinese. It takes Chinese characters as input and, by following the instructions of a computer program, produces other Chinese characters, which it presents as output. Suppose, says Searle, that this computer performs its task so convincingly that it comfortably passes the Turing test: it convinces a human Chinese speaker that the program is itself a live Chinese speaker. To all of the questions that the person asks, it makes appropriate responses, such that any Chinese speaker would be convinced that they are talking to another Chinese-speaking human being. > The question Searle wants to answer is this: does the machine literally "understand" Chinese? Or is it merely simulating the ability to understand Chinese? Searle calls the first position "strong AI" and the latter "weak AI". (Emphasis added) If we were to make an analogy to contemporary machine learning, we're talking about the difference between an LLM (with context) and a Markov Chain. 'Understanding' requires novel reuse of recollections. Recollections require memory (i.e. context), and the novel reuse of those recollections require a world model with which to inference.
- TaylorAlexander 2y ago
  I am personally in favor of the use of the word 'understanding' with LLMs, but it should be noted that many people strongly disagree with that use of the term.
- Terr_ 2y ago
  You're saying that LLMs meet the stronger definition of "understanding?" I disagree: You're confusing necessary with sufficient. [0] Take the original analogy of a person with an if-then opaque phrase table, and make it a slightly fancier two-step process where they must also compute a score based on recent phrases or words to determine the proper output. So now the system has "memory" and gives better output... But was that sufficient to create understanding? Nope. [0] And perhaps not even necessary, if we consider an operator who does understand Chinese but their short-term memory has been damaged by an injury.
  - h0l0cube 2y ago

perfmode 2y ago

it would be interesting if data mining and embeddings could reveal meaning hidden in the patterns and context.

ubj 2y ago

Good point on the difference between decoding and understanding. The paper "What is it like to be a bat?" [1] comes to mind. We can certainly try to decode the behaviors and language of whales, but understanding their mindset is an entirely different matter. [1]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_Is_It_Like_to_Be_a_Bat%3F https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_Is_It_Like_to_Be_a_Bat%...

yodsanklai 2y ago

Probably that I miss the deepness of this quote, but lions or whales are mammals like us and they must be chatting about their basic needs which we should be able to relate to.

kombookcha 2y ago
For Wittgenstein words don't so much express things in themselves, but are deeply integrated in nonspoken contexts and impressions. It's hard enough to really /get/ somebody from a different cultural context, whereas a lion lives in a massively different lifeworld, with a very different body. What does a word like "hungry" mean to you, when your diet is gorging yourself on freshly killed meat every couple of weeks? What does feeling "tired" mean, when you're the size of a bus and sleeping is done in increments of 10 minutes because you must constantly wake and resurface to breathe through a hole in your back? You can use language to gesture at these experiences, but that's different from really knowing what we are talking about. Not that I understand Wittgenstein very well at all, even though it seems like it should be easier than understanding whales and lions ;)
- krisoft 2y ago
  > It's hard enough to really /get/ somebody from a different cultural context This is such an eye roll statement. The world “really” is the one which does all the work in it. One would say “nah, communication is actually amazing, and through listening to people / reading their words and being attentive one can understand many different cultural contexts”. And whoever wrote the original sentence can always come back and ask “but did you really really understand them”? > What does a word like "hungry" mean to you, when your diet is gorging yourself on freshly killed meat every couple of weeks? I don’t understand the problem here. “Hunger” is the feeling which make you seek out food. If your normal is to gorge yourself full and don’t eat anything for weeks then you are not hungry for most of those weeks and then when you start feeling hungry that is when you start preparing for a new hunt, chasing a herd and so on. We already and in our everyday life understand such differe ces. We know for example that newborns need feeding a lot more frequently than adults, so when they become fussy we ask “is he hungry maybe?” Despite the fact that our own hunger works on a different schedule. We also undestand that when a holocaust survivor describes the deep hunger they suffered from in the camp that is a different feeling than the one you feel 2 hours after lunch when you start thinking about opening a pack of chips. Somehow we “get it”. But do we “realy” get it? Yeah i mean we know that the baby will become more and more fussy the longer it is not fed, and will die eventually. We know that the lion on the hunt will eat us if we look easy enough prey. We understand that people in the camps turned to eat things they would have considered inedible before, and the experience left lasting psychological scars on many of them. And we understand that the person thinking about opening a pack of chips will stop thinking about it if something distracts him/her for a minute. “But do we really really really understand them?” Idk. You tell me what you consider “really really really” understanding anything. Because one can play this game forever. > What does feeling "tired" mean, when you're the size of a bus and sleeping is done in increments of 10 minutes because you must constantly wake and resurface to breathe through a hole in your back? If that is normal for that being then they wouldn’t describe that state of being as tired. It is just their normal. But if something (illness, activity, noises) disturbs their normal which make them seek out more sleep they would call that being tired.