10 ms·

Your response is nonsense. We don't know how consciousness arises from matter but we do have significant understandings about knowledge, reasoning, modeling, vi

Your response is nonsense. We don't know how consciousness arises from matter but we do have significant understandings about knowledge, reasoning, modeling, visualization, object permanence, etc. etc. that are significant parts of how the human mind works. And we know LLMs have none of these. The point of my colored shape example is that it is an illusion that there is anything resembling a mind inside an LLM. I thought that was obvious enough I didn't need to explain it further than I did. As far as the original commenter's credentials; there's lots of people who should know better but buy into hype and nonsense.

stevenhuang 2y ago
> And we know LLMs have none of these. Go ahead and cite your sources. For every study claiming that LLMs lack these qualities, there are others that support and reinforce the connectionist model of how knowledge is encoded, and with other parallels to the human brain. So... it's inconclusive. It's bizarre why you so strongly insist otherwise when it's clear you are not informed. > The point of my colored shape example is that it is an illusion that there is anything resembling a mind inside an LLM And my example with subjecting a human brain through your procedure is to illustrate what a garbage experiment design it is. You wouldn't be able to tell there's a mind inside either. Both LLM and human brain mind would be confused. Both would "continue working" in the same way, trying to interpret meaning from meaningless stimulation. So you don't have a point to make, got it.
- greenthrow 2y ago
  We know LLMs don't have those things prima facia because they fail at all of them constantly. We also know how they work, they are token predicters. That is all they are and all they can do. What can be accomplished with that is pretty cool, but humans love to imagine there is more going on when there isn't. Just like with Eliza. If you don't understand how your attempt to apply my colored shape analogy to a human brain is nonsensical I am not going to waste my time explaining it to you. I had a point, I made it, and apparently it escaped you.
  - stevenhuang 2y ago
    And if you don't see how the example with the human brain throws a wrench in your analogy, it would explain why you'd think it as nonsensical, as it's exactly of relevance. > We also know how they work, they are token predicters. That is all they are and all they can do Ah there it is, you've betrayed a deep lack of understanding in all relevant disciplines (neuroscience, cognition, information theory) required to even appreciate the many errors you've made here. You sure understand the subject matter and have nothing possibly to learn. Enjoy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predictive_coding https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predictive_coding
    - greenthrow 2y ago
      I'm aware of the theories that LLM maximalists love to point to over and over that tries to make it seem like LLMs are more like human brains than they are. These theories are interesting in the context of actual minds but you far over extend their usefulness and application by trying to apply them to LLMs. We know as a hard fact that LLMs do not understand anything. They have no capacity to "understand". The constant, intractible failure modes that they continuously exhibit are clear byproducts of this fact. By continuing to cling to the absurd idea that there is more going on than token prediction you make yourself look like the people who kept insisting there was more going on with past generation chat bots even after being shown the source code. I have understood all along why you attempt to extend my colored shape example to the brain, but your basis for this is complete nonsense. Because a) we do not have the actual understanding of the brain to do this and b) it's competely beside the point, becuase we know that minds do arise from the brain. My whole point is an LLM is an illusion of a mind which is effective because it outputs words, which we are so hard wired to associate with other minds, expecially when they seem to "make sense" to us. If instead of words you use something nonsensical like colored shapes with no underlying meaning, this illusion of the mind goes away and you can see an LLM for whst it is.
      - smokel 2y ago
        > We know as a hard fact that LLMs do not understand anything. A bit late to the party, but we most certainly do not even know what "understanding" means.

stevenhuang 2y ago

> And we know LLMs have none of these. Go ahead and cite your sources. For every study claiming that LLMs lack these qualities, there are others that support and reinforce the connectionist model of how knowledge is encoded, and with other parallels to the human brain. So... it's inconclusive. It's bizarre why you so strongly insist otherwise when it's clear you are not informed. > The point of my colored shape example is that it is an illusion that there is anything resembling a mind inside an LLM And my example with subjecting a human brain through your procedure is to illustrate what a garbage experiment design it is. You wouldn't be able to tell there's a mind inside either. Both LLM and human brain mind would be confused. Both would "continue working" in the same way, trying to interpret meaning from meaningless stimulation. So you don't have a point to make, got it.

greenthrow 2y ago
We know LLMs don't have those things prima facia because they fail at all of them constantly. We also know how they work, they are token predicters. That is all they are and all they can do. What can be accomplished with that is pretty cool, but humans love to imagine there is more going on when there isn't. Just like with Eliza. If you don't understand how your attempt to apply my colored shape analogy to a human brain is nonsensical I am not going to waste my time explaining it to you. I had a point, I made it, and apparently it escaped you.
- stevenhuang 2y ago
  And if you don't see how the example with the human brain throws a wrench in your analogy, it would explain why you'd think it as nonsensical, as it's exactly of relevance. > We also know how they work, they are token predicters. That is all they are and all they can do Ah there it is, you've betrayed a deep lack of understanding in all relevant disciplines (neuroscience, cognition, information theory) required to even appreciate the many errors you've made here. You sure understand the subject matter and have nothing possibly to learn. Enjoy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predictive_coding https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predictive_coding
  - greenthrow 2y ago
    I'm aware of the theories that LLM maximalists love to point to over and over that tries to make it seem like LLMs are more like human brains than they are. These theories are interesting in the context of actual minds but you far over extend their usefulness and application by trying to apply them to LLMs. We know as a hard fact that LLMs do not understand anything. They have no capacity to "understand". The constant, intractible failure modes that they continuously exhibit are clear byproducts of this fact. By continuing to cling to the absurd idea that there is more going on than token prediction you make yourself look like the people who kept insisting there was more going on with past generation chat bots even after being shown the source code. I have understood all along why you attempt to extend my colored shape example to the brain, but your basis for this is complete nonsense. Because a) we do not have the actual understanding of the brain to do this and b) it's competely beside the point, becuase we know that minds do arise from the brain. My whole point is an LLM is an illusion of a mind which is effective because it outputs words, which we are so hard wired to associate with other minds, expecially when they seem to "make sense" to us. If instead of words you use something nonsensical like colored shapes with no underlying meaning, this illusion of the mind goes away and you can see an LLM for whst it is.
    - smokel 2y ago
      > We know as a hard fact that LLMs do not understand anything. A bit late to the party, but we most certainly do not even know what "understanding" means.