3 ms·

> the more that it becomes clear that LLMs really are just "fancy autocomplete", even if it's really really fancy autocomplete I also don't really see AGI emer

• hn_throwaway_99 2y ago
  > but it could be argued that human intelligence is also just 'fancy autocomplete'. But that's my point - in some ways it's obvious that humans are not just doing "fancy autocomplete" because humans generally don't make the types of hallucination errors that LLMs make. That is, the hallucination errors do make sense if you think of how an LLM is just a statistical relationship between tokens. One thing to emphasize, I'm not saying the "understanding" that humans seem to possess isn't just some lower level statistical process - I'm not "invoking a soul". But I am saying it appears to be fundamentally different, and in many cases more useful, than what an LLM can do.
  • wubrr 2y ago
    > because humans generally don't make the types of hallucination errors that LLMs make. They do though - I've noticed myself and others saying things in conversation that sound kind of right, and are based on correct things they've learned previously, but because memory of those things is only partial and mixed with other related information things are often said that are quite incorrect or combine two topics in a way that doesn't make sense.
• slashdave 2y ago
  > but it could be argued that human intelligence is also just 'fancy autocomplete'. Well, no. Humans do not think sequentially. But even if we were to put that aside, any "autocomplete" we perform is based on a world model, and not tokens in a string.