4 ms·
A trillion dimensional stochastic parrot is still a stochastic parrot. If these systems showed understanding we would notice. No one is denying that this form
by mensetmanusman 2y ago
A trillion dimensional stochastic parrot is still a stochastic parrot.
If these systems showed understanding we would notice.
No one is denying that this form of intelligence is useful.
- logicchains 2y agoI don't know how you can say they lack understanding of the world when in pretty much any standardised test designed to measure human intelligence they perform better than the average human. They only thing that don't understand is touch because they're not trained on that, but they can already understand audio and video.
- zeroonetwothree 2y agoAn answer key would outperform the average human but it isn’t intelligent. Tests designed for humans are not appropriate to judge non humans.
- zeknife 2y agoYou said it, those tests are designed to measure human intelligence, because we know that there is a correspondence between test results and other, more general tasks - in humans. We do not know that such a correspondence exists with language models. I would actually argue that they demonstrably do not, since even an LLM that passes every IQ test you put in front of it can still trip up on trivial exceptions that wouldn't fool a child.
- esafak 2y agoSo they fail in their own way? They're not humans; that's to be expected.
- devmor 2y agoNo you don’t understand, if i put a billion billion trillion monkeys on typewriters, they’re actually now one super intelligent monkey because they’re useful now! We just need more monkeys and it will be the same as a human brain.