3 ms·
I am increasingly concerned that these new reasoning models are thinking.
by James_K 2y ago
I am increasingly concerned that these new reasoning models are thinking.
- hall0ween 2y agoMy experience of thinking is that it is a constant phenomenon. My experience of LLMs is that they only respond and are not running without input.
- James_K 2y agoWell there is a gap between the firing of individual neurons in your mind. How long would that gap need to be for it not to count as thinking anymore?
- sejje 2y agoThat's because we don't leave them running, right? We could, though, yes?
- Baeocystin 2y agoCurrent LLMs decohere rapidly, and as far as I am aware, this problem seems like a fundamental to the architecture one.
- MengerSponge 2y agoYup. Tangentially related: https://qntm.org/mmacevedo https://qntm.org/mmacevedo
- recursive 2y agoNo problem. Just redefine "thinking".
- James_K 2y agoTo what? And how does that change the reality of what the models are doing?
- svachalek 2y agoI believe GP is being sarcastic, as this seems to be a common reaction. Every time a machine accomplishes something that seems to be intelligent, we redefine intelligence to exclude that thing, and now the issue is fixed: computers are not intelligent and they cannot think. Never mind that they can beat the entire world at chess and Go, and 90+% of the population at math, engineering, and physics problems. Those things do not require intelligence or thinking.
- Waterluvian 2y agoI still think that we’re at much greater risk of discovering that human thinking is much less magical, than we are of making a machine that does magical thinking.