6 ms·
> LLMs are just pattern matching and intelligence is something beyond that. Human knowledge is ultimately embodied in physical experiences, it is not merely sp
by _1tem 2y ago
> LLMs are just pattern matching and intelligence is something beyond that.
Human knowledge is ultimately embodied in physical experiences, it is not merely spitting out words. How can an LLM know the taste of a mango? Ability to regurgitate previously written text about mangos is neither knowledge nor intelligence. To know something, one must experience it, or something analogous to it.
Even mathematicians "experience" their formulas and proofs in an ineffable way, they don't just produce text. There's an "aha" moment when learners "get it" and they experience knowledge and are then able to produce correct answers and generate new knowledge and discoveries. LLMs just generate text, and have yet to produce any significant new discovery in any field.
LLMs are like fake wine sommeliers who have read a lot of lingo about wine and can speak convincingly enough to fool an amateur but would fail a simple taste test. We would say such a person doesn't know what he's talking about.
People who think LLMs are intelligent are like a cargo cult, or polytheists who believe their idols are gods. They're anthropomorphizing processes they don't understand. How can a probabilistic next-token word predictor be intelligent? Actual mammal brains are far more complex than that.
- jdenning 2y agoVery well said.
- rowanG077 2y agoThis is just fluff. I can read about something and understand it. I don't need have died in a car crash to know I most certainly don't want to be in one. Until we do actually know how intelligence emerges in the brain it makes zero sense to compare any AI to it.
- _1tem 2y agoYou read something and understand it only if you have had analogous experiences. A person from the 16th century would not be able to understand what the words "Call me on FaceTime" means because they have never had an experience of using a smartphone. You certainly don't know what it means to die. But you know what "car" is and "crash" is because you have had (and maybe witnessed) analogous physical experiences.
- ALittleLight 2y agoPeople in the 16th century had the notion of scrying mirrors - presumably without analogous experience. I'm sure you could explain FaceTime to a person from then. "This magic glass shows me the view and transports the sound from the magic glass of a friend or family member and vice versa, with their informed consent."
- _1tem 2y agoExactly. You would explain the concept to them using analogous experiences they have had. What experience has an LLM had?
- lostmsu 2y agoThis has nothing to do with experience. What experience can you have when people explain to you behavior of many dimensional hyperbolic space? When you learn SVD matrix decomposition? You don't need experience, you need some basic concepts.
- _1tem 2y agoAbstract mathematical concepts can eventually be traced back to simple integers, which are traced back to an experience of things in the world (a toddler learns to count 1, 2, 3). And it is precisely because higher mathematics is so far abstracted away from physical experience is the reason why many people struggle with it. Besides, many great mathematicians have explained their knowledge as an "experience" even "spiritual experience". Not all experiences are physical. Ramanujan described his experience of mathematics as lights and sounds and patterns, and this is common among geniuses. > you need some basic concepts Agreed. All basic concepts are an experience.
- rowanG077 2y agoI have not witnessed a car crash and I feel I do understand what it is. Similarly a 16th century person doesn't "Call me on FaceTime" because the words are not known. You could very easily explain the concept to them.
- oa335 2y agoPhilosophers have been discussing this for a while now, you and OP may be interested in their arguments. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qualia-knowledge/ https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qualia-knowledge/ https://courses.physics.illinois.edu/phys419/sp2021/Jackson1986_WhatMaryDidntKnow.pdf https://courses.physics.illinois.edu/phys419/sp2021/Jackson1...
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- HDThoreaun 2y agoThe creator of the knowledge argument, frank jackson, has since embraced materialism and therefore does not believe the knowledge argument is an impediment for unembodied AI.