3 ms·

Except that if the model genuinely was reasoning about the problem, you could test it with every variation of materials and weights in the world and it would pa

Except that if the model genuinely was reasoning about the problem, you could test it with every variation of materials and weights in the world and it would pass. Failing that problem at all in any way under any conditions is a failure of reasoning.

jdietrich 2y ago
By that logic, humans can't genuinely reason, because they're often fooled by counter-intuitive problems like Monty Hall or the Birthday Problem, or sometimes just make mistakes on trivial problems.
wongarsu 2y ago
We are pretty certain that humans can reason, yet they are sometimes wrong. Even if you give them the same problem over and over again with slight variations. LLMs get things wrong due to different factors than humans (humans lose focus, LLMs have randomness applied when sampling their responses to improve results). But clearly we have to choose a goal somewhat below 100% if we want a test that doesn't conclude that humans are incapable of reasoning.
- roughly 2y ago
  The difference is we _know_ that LLMs are fancy stochastic models, we don't know that they're capable of reasoning, and the null hypothesis is that they're not (because we know what they _are_ - we built them) - any "reasoning" is an emergent property of the system, not something we built them to do. In that case, evidence they're not reasoning - evidence they're stochastic parrots doing a performance of reasoning - weighs heavier, because the performance of reasoning fits into what we know they can do, whereas genuine reasoning would be something new to the model. There's deeper philosophical questions about what reasoning actually _is_, and LLMs have made those sharper, because they've shown it's clearly possible for a complex statistical model to generate words that look like reasoning, but the question is whether there's a difference between what they're doing and what humans are doing, and evidence that they're _not_ reasoning - evidence that they're just generating words in specific orders - weighs heavily against them.
  - wongarsu 2y ago
    We haven't coded LLMs to be stochastic models, we coded them to predict text with any method gradient decent finds on a transformer architecture. That's not exactly the same. But more importantly, if you want to show that LLMs can't reason you obviously have to use a test that when applied to humans would show that humans can reason. Otherwise your test isn't testing reasoning but something more strict.
  - Isinlor 2y ago
    It's widely accepted that reasoning is not a binary skill. You can make mistakes and still reason. Very often people given the same premises will disagree in thier reasoning as we are doing right here.
  - Clubber 2y ago
    >we don't know that they're capable of reasoning Apple AI researchers released a paper on it. They say no. https://arxiv.org/pdf/2410.05229 https://arxiv.org/pdf/2410.05229
whakim 2y ago
I’m not really sure what you’re trying to say here - that LLMs don’t work like human brains? We don’t need to conduct any analyses to know that LLMs don’t “know” anything in the way humans “know” things because we know how LLMs work. That doesn’t mean that LLMs aren’t incredibly powerful; it may not even mean that they aren’t a route to AGI.
- zahlman 2y ago
  >We don’t need to conduct any analyses to know that LLMs don’t “know” anything in the way humans “know” things because we know how LLMs work. People, including around HN, constantly argue (or at least phrase their arguments) as if they believed that LLMs do, in fact, possess such "knowledge". This very comment chain exists because people are trying to defend against a trivial example refuting the point - as if there were a reason to try. > That doesn’t mean that LLMs aren’t incredibly powerful; it may not even mean that they aren’t a route to AGI. I don't accept your definition of "intelligence" if you think that makes sense. Systems must be able to know things in the way that humans (or at least living creatures) do, because intelligence is exactly the ability to acquire such knowledge. It boggles my mind that I have to explain to people that sophisticated use of language doesn't inherently evidence thought, in the current political environment where the Dead Internet Theory is taken seriously, elections are shown over and over again to be more about tribalism and personal identity than anything to do with policy, etc.
  - SirMaster 2y ago
    You don't have to listen to or engage with those people though, just ignore 'em. People say all kinds of things on the Internet. It's completely futile to try to argue with or "correct" them all.
  - whakim 2y ago
    > I don't accept your definition of "intelligence" if you think that makes sense. Systems must be able to know things in the way that humans (or at least living creatures) do, because intelligence is exactly the ability to acquire such knowledge. According to whom? There is certainly no single definition of intelligence, but most people who have studied it (psychologists, in the main) view intelligence as a descriptor of the capabilities of a system - e.g., it can solve problems, it can answer questions correctly, etc. (This is why we call some computer systems "artificially" intelligent.) It seems pretty clear that you're confusing intelligence with the internal processes of a system (e.g. mind, consciousness - "knowing things in the way that humans do").
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

jdietrich 2y ago

By that logic, humans can't genuinely reason, because they're often fooled by counter-intuitive problems like Monty Hall or the Birthday Problem, or sometimes just make mistakes on trivial problems.

wongarsu 2y ago

We are pretty certain that humans can reason, yet they are sometimes wrong. Even if you give them the same problem over and over again with slight variations. LLMs get things wrong due to different factors than humans (humans lose focus, LLMs have randomness applied when sampling their responses to improve results). But clearly we have to choose a goal somewhat below 100% if we want a test that doesn't conclude that humans are incapable of reasoning.

roughly 2y ago
The difference is we _know_ that LLMs are fancy stochastic models, we don't know that they're capable of reasoning, and the null hypothesis is that they're not (because we know what they _are_ - we built them) - any "reasoning" is an emergent property of the system, not something we built them to do. In that case, evidence they're not reasoning - evidence they're stochastic parrots doing a performance of reasoning - weighs heavier, because the performance of reasoning fits into what we know they can do, whereas genuine reasoning would be something new to the model. There's deeper philosophical questions about what reasoning actually _is_, and LLMs have made those sharper, because they've shown it's clearly possible for a complex statistical model to generate words that look like reasoning, but the question is whether there's a difference between what they're doing and what humans are doing, and evidence that they're _not_ reasoning - evidence that they're just generating words in specific orders - weighs heavily against them.
- wongarsu 2y ago
  We haven't coded LLMs to be stochastic models, we coded them to predict text with any method gradient decent finds on a transformer architecture. That's not exactly the same. But more importantly, if you want to show that LLMs can't reason you obviously have to use a test that when applied to humans would show that humans can reason. Otherwise your test isn't testing reasoning but something more strict.
- Isinlor 2y ago
  It's widely accepted that reasoning is not a binary skill. You can make mistakes and still reason. Very often people given the same premises will disagree in thier reasoning as we are doing right here.
- Clubber 2y ago
  >we don't know that they're capable of reasoning Apple AI researchers released a paper on it. They say no. https://arxiv.org/pdf/2410.05229 https://arxiv.org/pdf/2410.05229

whakim 2y ago

I’m not really sure what you’re trying to say here - that LLMs don’t work like human brains? We don’t need to conduct any analyses to know that LLMs don’t “know” anything in the way humans “know” things because we know how LLMs work. That doesn’t mean that LLMs aren’t incredibly powerful; it may not even mean that they aren’t a route to AGI.

zahlman 2y ago
>We don’t need to conduct any analyses to know that LLMs don’t “know” anything in the way humans “know” things because we know how LLMs work. People, including around HN, constantly argue (or at least phrase their arguments) as if they believed that LLMs do, in fact, possess such "knowledge". This very comment chain exists because people are trying to defend against a trivial example refuting the point - as if there were a reason to try. > That doesn’t mean that LLMs aren’t incredibly powerful; it may not even mean that they aren’t a route to AGI. I don't accept your definition of "intelligence" if you think that makes sense. Systems must be able to know things in the way that humans (or at least living creatures) do, because intelligence is exactly the ability to acquire such knowledge. It boggles my mind that I have to explain to people that sophisticated use of language doesn't inherently evidence thought, in the current political environment where the Dead Internet Theory is taken seriously, elections are shown over and over again to be more about tribalism and personal identity than anything to do with policy, etc.
- SirMaster 2y ago
  You don't have to listen to or engage with those people though, just ignore 'em. People say all kinds of things on the Internet. It's completely futile to try to argue with or "correct" them all.
- whakim 2y ago
  > I don't accept your definition of "intelligence" if you think that makes sense. Systems must be able to know things in the way that humans (or at least living creatures) do, because intelligence is exactly the ability to acquire such knowledge. According to whom? There is certainly no single definition of intelligence, but most people who have studied it (psychologists, in the main) view intelligence as a descriptor of the capabilities of a system - e.g., it can solve problems, it can answer questions correctly, etc. (This is why we call some computer systems "artificially" intelligent.) It seems pretty clear that you're confusing intelligence with the internal processes of a system (e.g. mind, consciousness - "knowing things in the way that humans do").

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]