4 ms·
Lost me here - “LLMs are not brains and do not meaningfully share any of the mechanisms that animals or people use to reason or think.“ “the initial stages a c
by twobitshifter 2y ago
Lost me here - “LLMs are not brains and do not meaningfully share any of the mechanisms that animals or people use to reason or think.“
“the initial stages a completely new kind of mind, based on completely unknown principles, using completely unknown processes that have no parallel in the biological world.”
We just call it a neural network because we wanted to confuse biology with math for the hell of it?
“There is no reason to believe that it thinks or reasons—indeed, every AI researcher and vendor to date has repeatedly emphasised that these models don’t think.”
I mean just look at the Nobel Prize winners for counter examples to all of this https://www.cnn.com/2024/10/08/science/nobel-prize-physics-hopfield-hinton-machine-learning-intl/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2024/10/08/science/nobel-prize-physics-h...
I don’t understand the denialism behind replicating minds and thoughts with technology - that had been the entire point from the start.
- exclipy 2y agoYeah I was expecting the article to give an argument to back up this claim by talking about the mechanisms behind LLMs and the mechanisms behind human thought and demonstrating a lack of overlap. But I don't see any discussion of multilayer perceptrons or multi-head attention. Instead, the rest of the article is just saying "it's a con" with a lot of words.