5 ms·

> Reason? Clearly no. It doesn't understand what you're asking well enough to "reason". If you ask something a question ("Could a car fit in a bread-box?"), it

by Ukv 2y ago

> Reason? Clearly no. It doesn't understand what you're asking well enough to "reason". If you ask something a question ("Could a car fit in a bread-box?"), it maps from words into concepts in its internal semantic space ("car" to representation of car, associated with large size), then applies rules/patterns in a way that reaches a correct conclusion more often than an RNG baseline - what concretely would you say is missing from the process? > Would you trust a calculator that fails a simple addition test? Of course not. So why trust an LLM? You can weigh something in proportion to its accuracy, opposed to giving total trust or nothing at all. An 80%-accurate weather prediction is still useful, as are calculators despite potential for hardware issues or (more likely) fat-thumbing the wrong button. > Q: What is the square root of one plus one times forty five minus eighty eight? A: i * sqrt(42) I'm unclear on what you intend to be showing here. Is this an LLM response?

jqpabc123 2y ago
Is this an LLM response? Yes. It shows how easily an LLM can misinterpret subtlety and ambiguity in human language.
- Ukv 2y ago
  > Yes. It shows how easily an LLM can misinterpret subtlety and ambiguity in human language. Without parentheses or context, -42 is a perfectly reasonable answer to "one plus one times forty five minus eighty eight", to the extent that it's probably what I'd go with if asked it on a quiz. I imagine when you read it in you're head you're putting emphasis/pauses in places that lean towards the `((1+1) * 45) - 88` interpretation, but neither I nor the LLM have that information. If asked, GPT-4 can give reasonable responses to this issue: https://i.imgur.com/ptMB7Ci.png https://i.imgur.com/ptMB7Ci.png
  - jqpabc123 2y ago
    It is applying out of order symbolic precedence rules to prose language. These rules are not universal and certainly not when writing in prose form. LLMs frequently misinterpret and proceed without hesitation. They lack the necessary understanding to ask for clarification.
    - Ukv 2y ago
      > It is applying symbolic precedence rules to prose language. These rules are not universal and certainly not when writing in prose form. You have to apply some form of precedence in order to evaluate it at all. Question is whether to use PEMDAS, or left-to-right. I don't see anything wrong with the LLM's initial choice for the former, particuarly since it can explain the alternative and that it may be the more likely intention if spoken casually out loud as opposed to written as text. To potentially get back more to the core of the issue (rather than going on a tangent about whether an answer many humans would give is a misinterpretation): How do you define understanding? What do you think is currently missing? -- (edit, to respond to your edit:) -- > LLMs frequently misinterpret and proceed without hesitation. They lack the necessary understanding to ask for clarification. I'd conjecture that always giving an answer and not asking for clarification first may be an artifact of the system prompt/RLHF of the LLM you're using. Do you believe that asking for clarification on ambigious questions requires understanding?
      - jqpabc123 2y ago
        Do you believe that asking for clarification on ambigious questions requires understanding? Absolutely! Recognizing ambiguity requires a deeper level of cognition and analysis than simply making assumptions and plowing ahead to the wrong conclusion. LLMs clearly have no understanding of what "the letters in 'Hippopotamus'" means --- and they aren't smart enough to ask for or to really grasp an explanation.
        Ukv 2y ago
        > > Do you believe that asking for clarification on ambigious questions requires understanding? > Absolutely! Recognizing ambiguity requires a deeper level of cognition and analysis [...] Then if asking for clarification requires understanding, what do you make of cases where the LLM does ask for clarification (e.g: https://i.imgur.com/OXQF2nx.png https://i.imgur.com/OXQF2nx.png)? If it's doing something that requires understanding, does that not imply understanding?
        2y ago

by Ukv 2y ago

jqpabc123 2y ago

Is this an LLM response? Yes. It shows how easily an LLM can misinterpret subtlety and ambiguity in human language.

Ukv 2y ago
> Yes. It shows how easily an LLM can misinterpret subtlety and ambiguity in human language. Without parentheses or context, -42 is a perfectly reasonable answer to "one plus one times forty five minus eighty eight", to the extent that it's probably what I'd go with if asked it on a quiz. I imagine when you read it in you're head you're putting emphasis/pauses in places that lean towards the `((1+1) * 45) - 88` interpretation, but neither I nor the LLM have that information. If asked, GPT-4 can give reasonable responses to this issue: https://i.imgur.com/ptMB7Ci.png https://i.imgur.com/ptMB7Ci.png
- jqpabc123 2y ago
  It is applying out of order symbolic precedence rules to prose language. These rules are not universal and certainly not when writing in prose form. LLMs frequently misinterpret and proceed without hesitation. They lack the necessary understanding to ask for clarification.
  - Ukv 2y ago
    > It is applying symbolic precedence rules to prose language. These rules are not universal and certainly not when writing in prose form. You have to apply some form of precedence in order to evaluate it at all. Question is whether to use PEMDAS, or left-to-right. I don't see anything wrong with the LLM's initial choice for the former, particuarly since it can explain the alternative and that it may be the more likely intention if spoken casually out loud as opposed to written as text. To potentially get back more to the core of the issue (rather than going on a tangent about whether an answer many humans would give is a misinterpretation): How do you define understanding? What do you think is currently missing? -- (edit, to respond to your edit:) -- > LLMs frequently misinterpret and proceed without hesitation. They lack the necessary understanding to ask for clarification. I'd conjecture that always giving an answer and not asking for clarification first may be an artifact of the system prompt/RLHF of the LLM you're using. Do you believe that asking for clarification on ambigious questions requires understanding?
    - jqpabc123 2y ago
      Do you believe that asking for clarification on ambigious questions requires understanding? Absolutely! Recognizing ambiguity requires a deeper level of cognition and analysis than simply making assumptions and plowing ahead to the wrong conclusion. LLMs clearly have no understanding of what "the letters in 'Hippopotamus'" means --- and they aren't smart enough to ask for or to really grasp an explanation.
      - Ukv 2y ago
        > > Do you believe that asking for clarification on ambigious questions requires understanding? > Absolutely! Recognizing ambiguity requires a deeper level of cognition and analysis [...] Then if asking for clarification requires understanding, what do you make of cases where the LLM does ask for clarification (e.g: https://i.imgur.com/OXQF2nx.png https://i.imgur.com/OXQF2nx.png)? If it's doing something that requires understanding, does that not imply understanding?
        2y ago