3 ms·

> Caffeine and theobromine We still don't fully understand how they work. Of course, we didn't make them, nature did. > amphetamines Those break more than en

> Caffeine and theobromine We still don't fully understand how they work. Of course, we didn't make them, nature did. > amphetamines Those break more than enhance. > LLMs already do that As I said, disqualified for being a cauldron of souls. > How is this supposed to be different from what LLMs already do? My requirements enforce a no human content during training. It's exactly that requirement that makes the test easy. If you allow human content to be part of it, then tests become ellusive. > What did you actually mean? Be specific, be testable. I'm saying that LLMs are the spiritual successor to the mechanical turk. The entire concept falls apart if you take the human part of it out. There are living humans that had their works put inside and are publicly saying "I don't want to be inside this machine". What more do you want? Yes, they are impressive. I already said that. It's just not intelligence, it's an almost mythological trick we should have been more guarded against.

ben_w 2y ago
> As I said, disqualified for being a cauldron of souls. Would you like help moving those goal-posts for your supposedly easy to understand test? This claim: > My requirements enforce a no human content during training. It's exactly that requirement that makes the test easy. If you allow human content to be part of it, then tests become ellusive. Is directly incompatible with this one: > If we had a living human fluent in Linear A, I believe we could decipher it. Machines have us, living humans speaking a living language, to learn If there's no human content allowed, then we here today can't use a living human fluent in Linear A to decipher it. Nor, for that matter, even so much as the mere historical record of Linear A without any human. You are demanding AI pass a standard that literally no human would ever be capable of, because if I simply switch the nouns you get: "A pass is a human with no Linear A training data input that is able to reason on Linear A content". > There are living humans that had their works put inside and are publicly saying "I don't want to be inside this machine". What more do you want? I want you to be specific and to be testable. You still have a test which is… have you ever had a client who wanted you to build "Uber for aircraft" or something else equally vague? They didn't even realise they didn't have a plan. That's what I see from you. Your position is pre-paradigmatic. Consider for example: a human who grows up with no human works put inside their head is what is called a "feral child" — they do not magically understand anything of the rest of civilisation, this is because that understanding has to be taught by… observing humans as they talk to each other, mimicking them, trying to talk with them to get feedback, etc., which is what the LLMs are all doing. It looks like a double standard to me, that you demanding that an AI, who is raised by actual wolves does better than a human who is raised by actual wolves. What you have actually said so far, would refuse to recognise as intelligent an AI that is given control of an android body and had to read books by physically holding them and turning the pages with robot hands, which it operates in human timescales, and which gets there in the same timeframe as an actual human. It would also rule out an actual human, because we learn from the works of other humans.
- alganet 2y ago
  > Would you like help moving those goal-posts for your supposedly easy to understand test? No. I'm estabilishing a previous important goal-post: no machine turks. It's the current industry that laxed the requirements, not me that got more strict. You don't seem to understand the difference between training data and context. Read about it, and re-read what I said with that concept in mind. All your answers are already there.
  - ben_w 2y ago
    You don't understand that you don't understand. What you demand for AI, is equivalent to denying humans with the requirement: "A pass is a human with no Linear A training data input that is able to reason on Linear A content".
    - alganet 2y ago
      I demanded nothing. I made an observation about the nature of LLMs that so far remains unchecked. YOU came up with the idea of tests, and I tried to entertain you with some possibilities so you can understand better my point of view. YOU asked an impossible thing. You asked me to devise a test that proves that a fraudulent claim (LLMs have intelligence) is truthful. The best I can do is show you how silly that claim is. I actually don't need to prove anything. I just disproved something on a fundamental, ontological level. You're trying to make me go back on that ontodefinition or make a contradiction, which is not going to work.

ben_w 2y ago

> As I said, disqualified for being a cauldron of souls. Would you like help moving those goal-posts for your supposedly easy to understand test? This claim: > My requirements enforce a no human content during training. It's exactly that requirement that makes the test easy. If you allow human content to be part of it, then tests become ellusive. Is directly incompatible with this one: > If we had a living human fluent in Linear A, I believe we could decipher it. Machines have us, living humans speaking a living language, to learn If there's no human content allowed, then we here today can't use a living human fluent in Linear A to decipher it. Nor, for that matter, even so much as the mere historical record of Linear A without any human. You are demanding AI pass a standard that literally no human would ever be capable of, because if I simply switch the nouns you get: "A pass is a human with no Linear A training data input that is able to reason on Linear A content". > There are living humans that had their works put inside and are publicly saying "I don't want to be inside this machine". What more do you want? I want you to be specific and to be testable. You still have a test which is… have you ever had a client who wanted you to build "Uber for aircraft" or something else equally vague? They didn't even realise they didn't have a plan. That's what I see from you. Your position is pre-paradigmatic. Consider for example: a human who grows up with no human works put inside their head is what is called a "feral child" — they do not magically understand anything of the rest of civilisation, this is because that understanding has to be taught by… observing humans as they talk to each other, mimicking them, trying to talk with them to get feedback, etc., which is what the LLMs are all doing. It looks like a double standard to me, that you demanding that an AI, who is raised by actual wolves does better than a human who is raised by actual wolves. What you have actually said so far, would refuse to recognise as intelligent an AI that is given control of an android body and had to read books by physically holding them and turning the pages with robot hands, which it operates in human timescales, and which gets there in the same timeframe as an actual human. It would also rule out an actual human, because we learn from the works of other humans.

alganet 2y ago
> Would you like help moving those goal-posts for your supposedly easy to understand test? No. I'm estabilishing a previous important goal-post: no machine turks. It's the current industry that laxed the requirements, not me that got more strict. You don't seem to understand the difference between training data and context. Read about it, and re-read what I said with that concept in mind. All your answers are already there.
- ben_w 2y ago
  You don't understand that you don't understand. What you demand for AI, is equivalent to denying humans with the requirement: "A pass is a human with no Linear A training data input that is able to reason on Linear A content".
  - alganet 2y ago
    I demanded nothing. I made an observation about the nature of LLMs that so far remains unchecked. YOU came up with the idea of tests, and I tried to entertain you with some possibilities so you can understand better my point of view. YOU asked an impossible thing. You asked me to devise a test that proves that a fraudulent claim (LLMs have intelligence) is truthful. The best I can do is show you how silly that claim is. I actually don't need to prove anything. I just disproved something on a fundamental, ontological level. You're trying to make me go back on that ontodefinition or make a contradiction, which is not going to work.