3 ms·

> Some say that if you can memorize facts and algorithms and apply them to new data, it is a memorization. Some say that it is reasoning. Memorizing facts and

> Some say that if you can memorize facts and algorithms and apply them to new data, it is a memorization. Some say that it is reasoning. Memorizing facts and algorithms is memorization. The rest of what you are talking about is not. Applying existing knowledge on new data without deriving new information is generalization. An example of this is the case of a semantic segmentation model classifying a car that it has never seen. If the model was not trained on birds, it will never classify a bird as a bird. Computation of decidable problems is a large, possibly the largest subset of reasoning. Most humans do not struggle with solving decidable problems, the problem is that they are slow and can only solve small problem sizes, but most problems encountered in practice aren't one large decidable problem, but a long chain of many small, dozens to hundreds of heterogeneous problems that are seamlessly mixed with one another. LLMs struggle with decidable problems that are out of distribution, but you can give a human instructions on how to do something they have never done before and they will follow them with no problem. > More than that -- It's not clear that what humans do is not "just" a memorization. I hope it is clear that I did not memorize this message I am writing here and that it is the unique result of processes inside my brain that were not captured in the training process of an LLM. >We can always look at human experience mechanisticly and say that we don't think -- we just memorized thinking patterns and apply them when speaking and "thinking" Again you are trying to twist this in an absurd direction. Let's come up with a teleoperated humanoid robot on Mars that is controlled by a human on Earth. The robot acts exactly like a human does. Does this mean the robot is now capable of reasoning and thinking like a human, simply because it is replaying a recording of the human's body and speech? This is the argument you are making. You're arguing that the robot's ability to replay a human's actions is equivalent to the processes that brought about that human action.

godelski 2y ago
> Let's come up with a teleoperated humanoid robot on Mars One example I've always liked is from Star Trek. They got holodecks and no one thinks those are sentient people even though they are adaptive. I don't care what Iilya said, mimicking a human does not make a human. It may look like a duck, swims like a duck, and quack like a duck, then it's probably a duck, but you haven't ruled out an advanced animatronic. In fact, I'm betting right now people could make an animatronic that would convince most people it is a duck because most people just don't know the nuances of duck behavior.
- famouswaffles 2y ago
  I think your "advanced animatronic" is a duck until you can devise a test that cleanly separates it from a "real duck". A test of "duckness". If todays LLMs are not really intelligent (hardly anyone is arguing that LLMs are literally humans) then by all means, devise your intelligence test that will cleanly qualify Humans (and all creatures you ascertain are capable on intelligence) and disqualify LLMs. In good faith, it should be something both or all can reasonably attempt. I'll save you some time but feel free to prove me wrong. You will not be able to do so. Not because LLMs can solve every problem under the Sun but because you will at best create something that disqualifies LLMs and a good chunk of humans along the way. Anybody who cannot manage this task (which should be very simple if the difference is as obvious as a lot of people claim) has no business saying LLMs aren't intelligent.
  - godelski 2y ago
    > I think your "advanced animatronic" is a duck until you can devise a test that cleanly separates it from a "real duck". A test of "duckness". I think you're reaching and willfully misinterpreting. > You will not be able to do so. I am unable to because any test I make or from any other researcher in the field makes will result in an answer you don't like. River crossing puzzles are a common test. Sure, humans sometimes fail even the trivial variations, but the important part is how they fail. Humans guess the wrong answer. LLMs will tell you the wrong answer while describing steps that are correct and result in a different answer. It's the inconsistency and contradiction that's the demonstration of lack of reasoning and intelligence, not the failure itself.
    - famouswaffles 2y ago
      >I think you're reaching and willfully misinterpreting. That's the spirit of the popular phrase isn't it ? I genuinely never read that and thought that literally only those 3 properties were the bar. >I am unable to because any test I make or from any other researcher in the field makes will result in an answer you don't like. This is kind of an odd response. I mean maybe. I'll be charitable and agree wholeheartedly. But i don't know what my disappointment has to do with anything? I mean if i could prove something i deeply believed to be True and which would also be paper worthy, i certainly wouldn't let the reactions of an internet stranger stop me from doing it. >River crossing puzzles are a common test. Sure, humans sometimes fail even the trivial variations, but the important part is how they fail. Humans guess the wrong answer. LLMs will tell you the wrong answer while describing steps that are correct and result in a different answer. It's the inconsistency and contradiction that's the demonstration of lack of reasoning and intelligence, not the failure itself. Inconsistency and contradiction with the reasoning they say (and even believe) and the decisions they make is such a common staple of human reasoning we have a name for it...At worst, you could say these contradictions don't always take the same form but this just kind of loops back to my original point. Let me be clear here, if you want to look at results like these and say - "This is room for improvement", then Great!, I agree. But it certainly feels like a lot of people have a standard of reasoning (for machines) that only exists in fiction or their own imaginations. This general reasoning engine that makes neither mistake nor contradiction in output or process does not exist in real life whether you believe humans are the only beings capable of reasoning or are gracious enough to extend this capability to some of our animal friends. Also, i've seen LLMs fail trivial variations of said logic puzzles, only to get them right when you present the problem in a way that doesn't look exactly like the logic puzzle they've almost certainly memorized. Sometimes, it's as simple as changing the names involved. Isn't that fascinating ? Humans have a similar cognitive shortcoming.

godelski 2y ago

> Let's come up with a teleoperated humanoid robot on Mars One example I've always liked is from Star Trek. They got holodecks and no one thinks those are sentient people even though they are adaptive. I don't care what Iilya said, mimicking a human does not make a human. It may look like a duck, swims like a duck, and quack like a duck, then it's probably a duck, but you haven't ruled out an advanced animatronic. In fact, I'm betting right now people could make an animatronic that would convince most people it is a duck because most people just don't know the nuances of duck behavior.

famouswaffles 2y ago
I think your "advanced animatronic" is a duck until you can devise a test that cleanly separates it from a "real duck". A test of "duckness". If todays LLMs are not really intelligent (hardly anyone is arguing that LLMs are literally humans) then by all means, devise your intelligence test that will cleanly qualify Humans (and all creatures you ascertain are capable on intelligence) and disqualify LLMs. In good faith, it should be something both or all can reasonably attempt. I'll save you some time but feel free to prove me wrong. You will not be able to do so. Not because LLMs can solve every problem under the Sun but because you will at best create something that disqualifies LLMs and a good chunk of humans along the way. Anybody who cannot manage this task (which should be very simple if the difference is as obvious as a lot of people claim) has no business saying LLMs aren't intelligent.
- godelski 2y ago
  > I think your "advanced animatronic" is a duck until you can devise a test that cleanly separates it from a "real duck". A test of "duckness". I think you're reaching and willfully misinterpreting. > You will not be able to do so. I am unable to because any test I make or from any other researcher in the field makes will result in an answer you don't like. River crossing puzzles are a common test. Sure, humans sometimes fail even the trivial variations, but the important part is how they fail. Humans guess the wrong answer. LLMs will tell you the wrong answer while describing steps that are correct and result in a different answer. It's the inconsistency and contradiction that's the demonstration of lack of reasoning and intelligence, not the failure itself.
  - famouswaffles 2y ago
    >I think you're reaching and willfully misinterpreting. That's the spirit of the popular phrase isn't it ? I genuinely never read that and thought that literally only those 3 properties were the bar. >I am unable to because any test I make or from any other researcher in the field makes will result in an answer you don't like. This is kind of an odd response. I mean maybe. I'll be charitable and agree wholeheartedly. But i don't know what my disappointment has to do with anything? I mean if i could prove something i deeply believed to be True and which would also be paper worthy, i certainly wouldn't let the reactions of an internet stranger stop me from doing it. >River crossing puzzles are a common test. Sure, humans sometimes fail even the trivial variations, but the important part is how they fail. Humans guess the wrong answer. LLMs will tell you the wrong answer while describing steps that are correct and result in a different answer. It's the inconsistency and contradiction that's the demonstration of lack of reasoning and intelligence, not the failure itself. Inconsistency and contradiction with the reasoning they say (and even believe) and the decisions they make is such a common staple of human reasoning we have a name for it...At worst, you could say these contradictions don't always take the same form but this just kind of loops back to my original point. Let me be clear here, if you want to look at results like these and say - "This is room for improvement", then Great!, I agree. But it certainly feels like a lot of people have a standard of reasoning (for machines) that only exists in fiction or their own imaginations. This general reasoning engine that makes neither mistake nor contradiction in output or process does not exist in real life whether you believe humans are the only beings capable of reasoning or are gracious enough to extend this capability to some of our animal friends. Also, i've seen LLMs fail trivial variations of said logic puzzles, only to get them right when you present the problem in a way that doesn't look exactly like the logic puzzle they've almost certainly memorized. Sometimes, it's as simple as changing the names involved. Isn't that fascinating ? Humans have a similar cognitive shortcoming.