3 ms·
> instead of understanding why one step logically follows from another There’s currently 0% chance of “understanding” happening at any point with this technolo
by kingkongjaffa 2y ago
> instead of understanding why one step logically follows from another
There’s currently 0% chance of “understanding” happening at any point with this technology.
- jvanderbot 2y agoHow do we define understanding?
- TeMPOraL 2y agoThere are many ways to define it. Taking, for example the "definition" from Wikipedia here[0], you could say that LLMs are understanding, in a distilled form, because relationships is precisely what they're made of. -- [0] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Understanding#Definition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Understanding#Definition - though this feels more like vague musings than a definition proposal.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- ikanreed 2y agoI mostly agree, but struggle with saying this with perfect certainty. Understanding in the "have mental model of the world, apply it, derive thoughts from that model, derive words from thoughts" pattern is a thing they don't do the way we do. But understanding of some kinds CAN be encoded into tokens and their relationships. They're clearly capable of novel, correct inferences, that are not directly contained within their training sets. I all-but-guarantee my "My fish suffocated when I brought it to space, even though I gave it a space suit filled with pure water, why?" test case is not something it was explicitly trained on, but it correctly inferred "Because fish need oxygenated water"