4 ms·

Fine, you can ignore my previous comment, that's just my answer to the question that this discussion ultimately takes you to. But I feel like you are just sitti

Fine, you can ignore my previous comment, that's just my answer to the question that this discussion ultimately takes you to. But I feel like you are just sitting on the sidelines making strawmen and playing pedantic games instead of saying anything constructive. The original comment said: > If you really think about what an LLM is you would think there is no way that leads to general purpose AI. This is an inflammatory way to state an extreme position on a well-discussed debate over whether next-token prediction can lead to general intelligence. The original commenter clearly believes it can't get you there. If you want to say that with any authority, you need to have an answer for what is different between what we consider general intelligence (for most people, this is simply human intelligence) and what models are capable of. This is the question at the heart of artificial intelligence. I challenged them to explain their answer. I made no claims, I asked no one to prove anything wrong. If it is obvious that LLMs can't be AGI, the answer to how an LLM differs from human intelligence is also obvious, right?

Vegenoid 2y ago
> I made no claims, I asked no one to prove anything wrong. Your original comment was: > It is an autoregressive sequence predictor/generator. Explain to me how humans are fundamentally different. Which would be interpreted by most reasonable people as you making the claim that humans are autoregressive sequence predictors, and asking people to prove you wrong. I can see how you could say this without intending to make that claim, but most people will interpret this as you making that claim. I do not intend to inflame things or discredit what you are saying, but just to say that if you did not intend to make a claim or ask people to prove you wrong, a different approach would be more successful in the future.
- solidasparagus 2y ago
  You're right, it was hastily written and I was annoyed. But I generally hold out hope that people can see a claim "A!=B" and a response "A=C, explain how C!=B" and understand that is not the same as claiming "C=B", especially on HN.
  - throwanem 2y ago
    I do remain convinced my interpretation was sound, but on review I have to concede it was also quite uncharitable. With all the wildly overheated claims that've been flying around since the advent of these models, I may be myself somewhat overfitted. Granted, in such an environment I feel like a little extra care for epistemic hygiene is warranted. But there was no reason for me to be rude about it.
  - Vegenoid 2y ago
    I know what you mean. Unfortunately, it's easy for frank and concise language to be taken the wrong way when in written form (and sometimes even verbal form). I wish I didn't have to make qualifiers about my intent on my internet comments, but I often do, to try and make sure that other people take my comment the way I intended it. I think it generally leads to better discussion. I don't blame people for not wanting to talk this way.

Vegenoid 2y ago

> I made no claims, I asked no one to prove anything wrong. Your original comment was: > It is an autoregressive sequence predictor/generator. Explain to me how humans are fundamentally different. Which would be interpreted by most reasonable people as you making the claim that humans are autoregressive sequence predictors, and asking people to prove you wrong. I can see how you could say this without intending to make that claim, but most people will interpret this as you making that claim. I do not intend to inflame things or discredit what you are saying, but just to say that if you did not intend to make a claim or ask people to prove you wrong, a different approach would be more successful in the future.

solidasparagus 2y ago
You're right, it was hastily written and I was annoyed. But I generally hold out hope that people can see a claim "A!=B" and a response "A=C, explain how C!=B" and understand that is not the same as claiming "C=B", especially on HN.
- throwanem 2y ago
  I do remain convinced my interpretation was sound, but on review I have to concede it was also quite uncharitable. With all the wildly overheated claims that've been flying around since the advent of these models, I may be myself somewhat overfitted. Granted, in such an environment I feel like a little extra care for epistemic hygiene is warranted. But there was no reason for me to be rude about it.
- Vegenoid 2y ago
  I know what you mean. Unfortunately, it's easy for frank and concise language to be taken the wrong way when in written form (and sometimes even verbal form). I wish I didn't have to make qualifiers about my intent on my internet comments, but I often do, to try and make sure that other people take my comment the way I intended it. I think it generally leads to better discussion. I don't blame people for not wanting to talk this way.