6 ms·
You can still regurgitate a chain of thought response… It’s all still tokens…
by dartos 2y ago
You can still regurgitate a chain of thought response…
It’s all still tokens…
- ninetyninenine 2y agoOh stop. The neural network is piecing together the tokens in a way that indicates reasoning. Clearly. I don't really need to say this, we all know it now and so do you. Your statement here is just weak. It's really embarrassing the stubborn stance people were taking that LLMs weren't intelligent and wouldn't make any progress towards agi. I sometimes wonder how people live with themselves when they realize their wrong outlook on things is just as canned and biased as the hallucinations of LLMs themselves.
- dartos 2y agoPersonal attacks really make your argument stronger.
- ninetyninenine 2y agoI said your statement was weak I didn't say YOU were weak. Don't take it personally. It wasn't meant to be that way. If you take offense then I apologize. That being said, my argument was a statement about a general fact that is very true. The sentiment not too long ago was these things are just regurgitators with no similarity to human intelligence. I think it's clear now that all the previous claims were just completely baseless.
- Jensson 2y ago> That being said, my argument was a statement about a general fact that is very true. Is this a general fact that is very true? It sounds like you are judging rather than stating a fact. > It's really embarrassing the stubborn stance people were taking that LLMs weren't intelligent and wouldn't make any progress towards agi. I sometimes wonder how people live with themselves when they realize their wrong outlook on things is just as canned and biased as the hallucinations of LLMs themselves.
- ninetyninenine 2y agoYeah it is. Judgments can be true. Where is my judgement not true? It’s embarrassing to be so insistent on being right then finding out they’re so wrong. Also I made a broad and general statement. I never referred to you or anyone personally here. If you got offended it only meant the judgement correctly referred to you and that you fit the criteria. But doesn’t that also make what I said true?
- Jensson 2y ago> If you got offended it only meant the judgement correctly referred to you If you say "I hate all these black criminals I see everywhere" people will get offended even if they aren't black criminals, so your reasoning here is flawed. And note how that is true even if there are a lot of black criminals around. Why do people get upset over that? Its because they feel you judge more people as criminals than actually are. And its the same with your statement there, the way you phrased it it feels like you judge way more people than actually fit your description. If you want people to not judge you that way then you have to change how you write.
- ninetyninenine 2y agoRight but HN is above that. Or so I thought? I thought this was a forum that people intelligently debate concepts and are able to maturely separate that from emotions. Are you saying you’re not above that? That if someone points something out that’s true about you that you don’t like to hear you get offended and emotional? If that is the case then I apologize to you for saying something that is true about you and you don’t like to hear or face. Apologies, truly.
- cess11 2y agoReasoning is a human, social and embodied activity. TFA is about machines that output text reminiscent of the results of reasoning, but it's obviously fake since the machine is neither human, social or embodied. It's an attempt at fixing perceived problems with the query planner in an irreversibly compressed database.
- dyauspitr 2y agoThat’s not what reason is. There’s nothing inherently human about reason.
- ninetyninenine 2y agoThere's a sort of existential dread once man has created a machine that can perform on par with man himself. We don't want to face the truth so we move the goal posts and definitions. To reason is now a human behavior. We moved the goal posts so we don't have to face the truth that AI crossed a barrier with the creation of LLMs. It doesn't really matter, there's no turning back now.
- dyauspitr 2y agoI think the perspective is diametrically opposite to what you’re suggesting. It’s saying things that human do are not singular or sacrosanct. It’s a full acceptance that humanity will be surpassed.
- cess11 2y agoWe can create beings "on par with man himself". If you ask around where you live someone will likely be able to show you some small ones and might perhaps introduce you to the activity that brings them to life.
- ninetyninenine 2y agoRight, obviously man/child is on par with man himself. I’m obviously talking about something on par with man himself but isn’t a man or even human. It is something else.
- daveguy 2y agoI don't think anyone has said LLMs wouldn't make any progress toward AGI, especially of researchers in the field. But a small piece of progress toward AGI is not the same as AGI.
- CamperBob2 2y agoYou can still regurgitate a chain of thought response… You people are so close to getting it. So close to understanding that you're the ones doing the regurgitating.
- dartos 2y agoThat sword cuts both ways.
- CamperBob2 2y agoI mean, you talk about a predictable, deterministic next-token generator...
- fmbb 2y agoWhy do you believe that is how humans reason?
- mrbungie 2y agoNeuroscience and evidence be damned, [the brain is a computer] is being transformed into [the brain is an LLM]. Happens with every new technology. Edit: What is happening with people these days? They seem to be reducing people and their minds to machines more easily than ever.
- CamperBob2 2y agoYou want to talk evidence, let's talk evidence. What does the brain do that these models don't (or, more generally, can't)? Be specific. And no, it doesn't "happen with every new technology." Nothing even remotely like this has been seen before the present decade.
- mjmas 2y agoHave experiences and feelings. Have personal knowledge of something. Be able to express language with a training/knowledge/etc corpus of far smaller size.