3 ms·

It is unclear to me whether an empirical fact about cognitive systems can even in principle support or refute an assertion of the abstract form “<ambiguous conc

It is unclear to me whether an empirical fact about cognitive systems can even in principle support or refute an assertion of the abstract form “<ambiguous concept> is <other ambiguous concept>.” One could also point out the the underlying assumption of the question seems to rest on LLMs as representing “just statistics on language”, which is only a correct assertion insofar as babies learn language by just doing statistics on language. I am at this point not even sure what people think they mean when they say this, what they think these “statistics” are, and why they think calling the system “statistics” instead of “cognitive algorithms” does any philosophical work. In other words, the OP seems to rest on the framing that LLMs are “just” doing “statistical analysis” that this is some kind of meaningful distinction, as if the argument would change if LLMs were doing some other kind of analysis. I can’t escape the sense that I am being overly generous and that the OP simply has no idea how transformers or even neural networks work, but feels very sure that it must be some kind of parlor trick, and thus presumes that it is so.

famouswaffles 2y ago
Yes statistics has basically become magic now. This seems to be a general overview. A - Task x requires understanding B - GPT-N performs Task x C - Obviously, GPT-N doesn't understand D - Task x doesn't require understanding But see, C is just an unfounded assertion. If you question someone on C, they will often say something like, "It's just statistics and that's why it's still possible for B to happen". But "statistics" never does any real work here. Never provides any meaningful distinction. If you replace "statistics" with "magic" in the sentence, nothing actually changes because all statistics does in these kinds of conversations is provide a convenient boogeyman. A - A force is required to lift a ball B - I see Human-N lifting a ball C - Obviously, Human-N cannot produce forces D - Forces are not required to lift a ball Well sir, why are you so sure Human-N cannot produce forces? How is he/she lifting the ball ? Well Of course Human-N is just using s̶t̶a̶t̶i̶s̶t̶i̶c̶s̶ magic
- 343rwerfd 2y ago
  Lots and lots words flow about this. For me, it is very simple. LLMs do a complex process, quite analog to human thinking/understanding/speaking/writing, but they're doing all those - most probably - in an alternative way to what humans do in their brains. Directly comparing LLM's outputs with human output is like comparing a F22 flying with an eagle flying. Both fly obviously, but using entirely different processes to do so (different requirements, capabilities, despite the simplest similarity of both systems - the eagle and the F22 - at "doing fly"). You don't automatically say "an eagle is more capable at flying than a F22, because it flies with very little energy requirements while deploying quite better, reliable take-off / landing capabilities". You actually don't usually go comparing these systems just because both can fly. but many out there are pulling their hair trying to compare side by side the obvious mathematical systems that LLMs are to - most probably again - the completely different in nature systems that humans are.

famouswaffles 2y ago

Yes statistics has basically become magic now. This seems to be a general overview. A - Task x requires understanding B - GPT-N performs Task x C - Obviously, GPT-N doesn't understand D - Task x doesn't require understanding But see, C is just an unfounded assertion. If you question someone on C, they will often say something like, "It's just statistics and that's why it's still possible for B to happen". But "statistics" never does any real work here. Never provides any meaningful distinction. If you replace "statistics" with "magic" in the sentence, nothing actually changes because all statistics does in these kinds of conversations is provide a convenient boogeyman. A - A force is required to lift a ball B - I see Human-N lifting a ball C - Obviously, Human-N cannot produce forces D - Forces are not required to lift a ball Well sir, why are you so sure Human-N cannot produce forces? How is he/she lifting the ball ? Well Of course Human-N is just using s̶t̶a̶t̶i̶s̶t̶i̶c̶s̶ magic

343rwerfd 2y ago
Lots and lots words flow about this. For me, it is very simple. LLMs do a complex process, quite analog to human thinking/understanding/speaking/writing, but they're doing all those - most probably - in an alternative way to what humans do in their brains. Directly comparing LLM's outputs with human output is like comparing a F22 flying with an eagle flying. Both fly obviously, but using entirely different processes to do so (different requirements, capabilities, despite the simplest similarity of both systems - the eagle and the F22 - at "doing fly"). You don't automatically say "an eagle is more capable at flying than a F22, because it flies with very little energy requirements while deploying quite better, reliable take-off / landing capabilities". You actually don't usually go comparing these systems just because both can fly. but many out there are pulling their hair trying to compare side by side the obvious mathematical systems that LLMs are to - most probably again - the completely different in nature systems that humans are.