4 ms·

People found that `m * v` is the quantity which is conserved. There's no understanding. It's just a formula which matches the observations. It also matches our

People found that `m * v` is the quantity which is conserved. There's no understanding. It's just a formula which matches the observations. It also matches our intuition (a heavier object is hard to move, etc), and you feel this connection as understanding. Centuries later people found that conservation laws are linked to symmetries. But again, it's not some fundamental truth, it's just a link between two concepts. LLM can link two concepts too. So why do you believe that LLM cannot understand? I middle school I did extremely well in physics classes - I could solve complex problems which my classmates couldn't because I could visualize the physical process (e.g. motion of an object) and link that to formulas. This means I understood it, right? Years later I thought "But what *is* motion, fundamentally?". I grabbed Landau-Lifshitz mechanics textbook. How do they define motion? Apparently, bodies move in a way to minimize some integral. They can derive the rest from it. But it doesn't explain what a motion is. Some of the best physicists in the world cannot define it. So I don't think there's anything to understanding except feeling of connection between different things. "X is like Y except for Z".

mrob 2y ago
Understanding is finding the simplest general solution. Newton's laws are understanding. Catching the ball is not. LLMs take billions of parameters to do anything and don't even generalize well. That's obviously not understanding.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- killerstorm 2y ago
  You're confusing two meanings of world "understanding": 1. Finding a comprehensive explanation 2. Having a comprehensive explanation which is usable 99.999% people on Earth do not discover any new laws, so I don't think you use #1 as a fundamental deficiency of LLMs. And nobody is saying that just training a LLM produces understanding of new phenomena. That's a strawman. The thesis is that a more powerful LLM together with more software, more models, etc, can potentially discover something new. That's not observed yet. But I'd say it would be weird if LLM can match capabilities of average folk but never match Newton. It's not like Newton's brain is fundamentally different. Also worth noting that formulas can be discovered by enumeration. E.g. `m * v` should not be particularly hard to discover. And the fact that it took people centuries implies that that's what happened: people tried different formulas until they found one which works. It doesn't have to be some fancy Newton magic.
  - mrob 2y ago
    I'm certain that people did not spend centuries trying different formulas for the laws of motion before finding one that worked. The crucial insight was applying any formula at all. Once you have that then the rest is relatively easy. I don't see LLMs making that kind of discovery.

mrob 2y ago

Understanding is finding the simplest general solution. Newton's laws are understanding. Catching the ball is not. LLMs take billions of parameters to do anything and don't even generalize well. That's obviously not understanding.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
killerstorm 2y ago
You're confusing two meanings of world "understanding": 1. Finding a comprehensive explanation 2. Having a comprehensive explanation which is usable 99.999% people on Earth do not discover any new laws, so I don't think you use #1 as a fundamental deficiency of LLMs. And nobody is saying that just training a LLM produces understanding of new phenomena. That's a strawman. The thesis is that a more powerful LLM together with more software, more models, etc, can potentially discover something new. That's not observed yet. But I'd say it would be weird if LLM can match capabilities of average folk but never match Newton. It's not like Newton's brain is fundamentally different. Also worth noting that formulas can be discovered by enumeration. E.g. `m * v` should not be particularly hard to discover. And the fact that it took people centuries implies that that's what happened: people tried different formulas until they found one which works. It doesn't have to be some fancy Newton magic.
- mrob 2y ago
  I'm certain that people did not spend centuries trying different formulas for the laws of motion before finding one that worked. The crucial insight was applying any formula at all. Once you have that then the rest is relatively easy. I don't see LLMs making that kind of discovery.