4 ms·
Or maybe they're just pattern matching on the very particular sentence structure you've chosen. This isn't a convincing example at all
by wonnage 2y ago
Or maybe they're just pattern matching on the very particular sentence structure you've chosen. This isn't a convincing example at all
- jdietrich 2y agoThis isn't something I should convince you of. Just open up ChatGPT or Claude and try it for yourself. Think up a batch of your own questions and see how a modern LLM fares. I assure you that it'll do much better than chance. If you're so inclined, you can run enough tests to achieve statistical significance in the course of your lunch break. It depresses me that we seem to be spending more time arguing and hypothesising about LLMs than empirically testing them. The question of whether LLMs can think is completely settled, as their performance at zero-shot problems is simply impossible through pure memorisation or pattern-matching. The question that remains is far more interesting - how do they think? https://arxiv.org/pdf/2205.11916 https://arxiv.org/pdf/2205.11916
- nickpsecurity 2y agoGiven their training set, our hypothesis so far should be that they're just tweaking things they've already seen by applying a series of simple rules. They're still not doing what human beings do. We have introspection, creativity operating outside what we've seen, modeling others' thoughts, planning in new domains, and so on. We also operate without hallucination most of the time. I've yet to see an A.I. do all of this reliably and consistently. Then, that it did that without training input similar to the output. So, they don't just pattern match or purely memorize. They do more than that. They do way less than humans. Unlike humans, they also try to do everything with one or a few components vs our (100-200?) brain components. Crossing that gap might be achievable. It will not be done by current architectures, though.