3 ms·

At no point did I say humans and LLMs have the same failure modes. > But the vast majority of people would meet the requirement of drawing it filled to the bri

At no point did I say humans and LLMs have the same failure modes. > But the vast majority of people would meet the requirement of drawing it filled to the brim. But both are failures, right? It's just a cognitive bias that we don't expect artistic ability of most people. > But saying it's more intelligent than humans requires you to use a drastically different axis I'm not going to rehash this here, but as I said elsewhere in this thread, intelligences are different. There's no one metric, but for many common human tasks, the ability of the LLMs surpasses humans. > saying that computers are smarter than humans because they can add two numbers more quickly. This is where I disagree. Unlike a traditional program, both humans and LLMs can take unstructured input and instruction. Yes, they can both fail and they fail differently (or succeed in different ways), but there is a wide gulf between the sort of structured computation a traditional program does and an llm.

vlovich123 2y ago
> But both are failures, right? It's just a cognitive bias that we don't expect artistic ability of most people No, I'd say very different failures. The LLM is failing at reasoning and understanding whereas people are failing at training. Humans can fix the training part by simply doing the task repetitively. LLMs can't fix the understanding part because it's a fundamental flaw in the design. It's like categorizing a chimp's inability to understand logical reasoning as "cognitive bias" - no it's a much more structural problem. > intelligences are different. There's no one metric, but for many common human tasks, the ability of the LLMs surpasses humans There isn't one metric, and yes LLMs surpass humans on various tasks. But we've not been able to establish any evidence that the mechanism that they operate by is intelligence. It's certainly the closest we've come to building something artificial that approximates it to a high degree in some cases. But there's still no indication this isn't just a general purpose ML algorithm or has anything approaching human intelligence or sentience - basically it can mimic various human skills related to generative intelligence (writing and drawing) but less clear it can mimic anything else. > This is where I disagree. Unlike a traditional program, both humans and LLMs can take unstructured input and instruction That is true but it's a huge claim and leap to then say that anything taking unstructured input and instruction is demonstrating intelligence, especially when it fails to execute the requested instructions correctly regardless how much correction you have to do (as demonstrated by the wine glass problem & many other similar kinds of failure points). There's reason to believe that there's a difference from a power perspective & from the fact that transformers are not self-learning from additional input whereas humans meld short term and long term learning while things like ChatGPT bolt on "memories" which are just factoids stored in a RAG and not something that the transformer is learning as new data.

vlovich123 2y ago

> But both are failures, right? It's just a cognitive bias that we don't expect artistic ability of most people No, I'd say very different failures. The LLM is failing at reasoning and understanding whereas people are failing at training. Humans can fix the training part by simply doing the task repetitively. LLMs can't fix the understanding part because it's a fundamental flaw in the design. It's like categorizing a chimp's inability to understand logical reasoning as "cognitive bias" - no it's a much more structural problem. > intelligences are different. There's no one metric, but for many common human tasks, the ability of the LLMs surpasses humans There isn't one metric, and yes LLMs surpass humans on various tasks. But we've not been able to establish any evidence that the mechanism that they operate by is intelligence. It's certainly the closest we've come to building something artificial that approximates it to a high degree in some cases. But there's still no indication this isn't just a general purpose ML algorithm or has anything approaching human intelligence or sentience - basically it can mimic various human skills related to generative intelligence (writing and drawing) but less clear it can mimic anything else. > This is where I disagree. Unlike a traditional program, both humans and LLMs can take unstructured input and instruction That is true but it's a huge claim and leap to then say that anything taking unstructured input and instruction is demonstrating intelligence, especially when it fails to execute the requested instructions correctly regardless how much correction you have to do (as demonstrated by the wine glass problem & many other similar kinds of failure points). There's reason to believe that there's a difference from a power perspective & from the fact that transformers are not self-learning from additional input whereas humans meld short term and long term learning while things like ChatGPT bolt on "memories" which are just factoids stored in a RAG and not something that the transformer is learning as new data.