4 ms·

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 “kno

by 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").

by whakim 2y ago

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").