5 ms·

I dont think the errors really are all that different. Ever since GPT-3.5 came out Ive been thinking that the errors were ones a human could have made under a s

by pydry 2y ago

I dont think the errors really are all that different. Ever since GPT-3.5 came out Ive been thinking that the errors were ones a human could have made under a similar context. >LLMs can keep getting closer to match our physical reality, but when you zoom into the details you'll always find that it comes short. Like humans. >So you can never really trust an LLM. Cant really trust a human either. That's why we set up elaborate human systems (science, checks and balances in government, law, freedom of speech, markets) to mitigate our constant tendency to be complete fuck ups. We hallucinate science that does not exist, lies to maintain our worldview, jump to conclusions about guilt, build businesses based upon bad beliefs, etc. >If we want to make an AI that doesn't make errors, it should understand how physics works An AI that doesnt make errors wouldnt be AGI it would be a godlike superintelligence. I dont think thats even feasible. I think a propensity to make errors is intrinsic to how intelligence functions. Physics is just one domain that they work in and Im pretty sure some of them already do have varying understandings of physics.

gitaarik 2y ago
But if you ask a human to draw / illustrate a physical setting, they would never draw something that is physically impossible, because it's obvious to a human. Of course we make all kinds of little mistakes, but at least we can see that they are mistakes. An LLM can't see it's own mistakes, it needs to be corrected by a human. > Physics is just one domain that they work in and Im pretty sure some of them already do have varying understandings of physics. Yeah but that would then not be al LLM or machine learned thing. We would program it so that it understands the rules of physics, and then it can interpret things based on those rules. But that is a totally different kind of AI, or rather a true AI instead of a next-word predictor that looks like an AI. But the development of such AIs goes a lot slower because you can't just keep training it, you actually have to program it. But LLMs can actually help program it ;). Although LLMs are mostly good at currently existing technologies and not necessarily new ones.

by pydry 2y ago

gitaarik 2y ago

But if you ask a human to draw / illustrate a physical setting, they would never draw something that is physically impossible, because it's obvious to a human. Of course we make all kinds of little mistakes, but at least we can see that they are mistakes. An LLM can't see it's own mistakes, it needs to be corrected by a human. > Physics is just one domain that they work in and Im pretty sure some of them already do have varying understandings of physics. Yeah but that would then not be al LLM or machine learned thing. We would program it so that it understands the rules of physics, and then it can interpret things based on those rules. But that is a totally different kind of AI, or rather a true AI instead of a next-word predictor that looks like an AI. But the development of such AIs goes a lot slower because you can't just keep training it, you actually have to program it. But LLMs can actually help program it ;). Although LLMs are mostly good at currently existing technologies and not necessarily new ones.