3 ms·

At this point even if it turned out the brain operates on subatomic mechanical gears so small we cannot actually see, it would not in any way affect the reasoni

At this point even if it turned out the brain operates on subatomic mechanical gears so small we cannot actually see, it would not in any way affect the reasoning that the current approach is going to scale to AGI. The reasoning is not based on closeness of LLMs to the operation mechanics of the human brain, but on the observed capabilities.

chrsw 2y ago
But how far do you have to scale LLMs to get to a conscious system? Would it even be practical?
- exe34 2y ago
  a conscious system is aware of itself. chat gpt is aware of itself, that's the first thing they tell it in the system prompt.
  - whtsthmttrmn 2y ago
    On an Etch-a-Sketch I can tell it that it's aware of itself...doesn't mean it actually is.
    - exe34 2y ago
      you probably claim to be aware too.
  - slowmovintarget 2y ago
    Chat GPT is not aware. It has no self. It produces token strings that are statistically likely to be a match for any given prompt based on text it's been fed. But the reason it gets things wrong is not the same reason we get things wrong. It gets things wrong because the probabilities matched but the actual meaning did not. It sounds great that RAG stands for Recursively Assembled Grammar (in a discussion about LLMs), only it doesn't. The LLM generated text that even explained RAG as a recursive grammar applied in the context of LLM usage, but RAG stands for Request-Augmented Generation. When I pointed this out the system output "Oh, of course, that is also a thing and it means..." But the system had no awareness. Not of the meaning of the text it was producing, and not of any sort of self.
- lostmsu 2y ago
  > But how far do you have to scale LLMs to get to a conscious system? Well, that's relatively simple to see. Run a Turing test on models of different sizes and extrapolate. That will give you some approximation of the "distance". > Would it even be practical? You can make a descent educated guess by doing the above.

chrsw 2y ago

But how far do you have to scale LLMs to get to a conscious system? Would it even be practical?

exe34 2y ago
a conscious system is aware of itself. chat gpt is aware of itself, that's the first thing they tell it in the system prompt.
- whtsthmttrmn 2y ago
  On an Etch-a-Sketch I can tell it that it's aware of itself...doesn't mean it actually is.
  - exe34 2y ago
    you probably claim to be aware too.
- slowmovintarget 2y ago
  Chat GPT is not aware. It has no self. It produces token strings that are statistically likely to be a match for any given prompt based on text it's been fed. But the reason it gets things wrong is not the same reason we get things wrong. It gets things wrong because the probabilities matched but the actual meaning did not. It sounds great that RAG stands for Recursively Assembled Grammar (in a discussion about LLMs), only it doesn't. The LLM generated text that even explained RAG as a recursive grammar applied in the context of LLM usage, but RAG stands for Request-Augmented Generation. When I pointed this out the system output "Oh, of course, that is also a thing and it means..." But the system had no awareness. Not of the meaning of the text it was producing, and not of any sort of self.
lostmsu 2y ago
> But how far do you have to scale LLMs to get to a conscious system? Well, that's relatively simple to see. Run a Turing test on models of different sizes and extrapolate. That will give you some approximation of the "distance". > Would it even be practical? You can make a descent educated guess by doing the above.