5 ms·

It’s always baffling how people take a technology that wasn’t even thought as feasible a decade ago and try to dismiss it as trivial and stagnant. It’s pretty c

• bulatb 2y ago
  You can't interrogate your qualia. A lot of people think (or really, feel) that makes them magic. It doesn't. But if you feel they're magic, you'll never believe that a "random" mechanical process, which you think you can interrogate, could ever really have that spark.
  • CarRamrod 2y ago
    Define 'magic'.
    • deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
  • wolvesechoes 2y ago
    Welcome on hackernews, where thousands years old philosophical problems are solved through plain assertions!
    • bulatb 2y ago
      Qualia might still be magic. Maybe we have souls or something, I don't know. I'm comfortable with saying that this way of answering the question doesn't work, because the argument is simply, "How can it be false if I believe it's true?"
    • KeplerBoy 2y ago
      Turns out we have technologies and experiences with technology which weren't possible until very recently. Some things just look very different in hindsight.
      • wolvesechoes 2y ago
        Nothing changed in regard to so called hard problem of consciousness. All thought experiments and arguments like Chinese Room and p-zombies are still applicable. Philosophy of mind hasn't started nor ended with Dennett, and definitely not with AI hype manufacturers.
  • pizza 2y ago
    Hang on a sec... the qualia research institute might take umbrage at that first bit.
  • baq 2y ago
    I subscribe to the ‘qualia is atoms in a trenchcoat’ school of philosophy personally, but I understand that it might be hard to accept and even harder to not be depressed about it.
    • amanaplanacanal 2y ago
      Well sure. As best we can tell the whole universe is a mechanical cause and effect chain, and the illusion of free will is just that, an illusion. Or possibly... There is something else going on, and we just haven't figured it what it is yet. I'm not betting either way at this point.
  • eru 2y ago
    Well, it doesn't matter whether the AI has qualia, as long as it produces the right output.
  • dingnuts 2y ago
    LMAO really? Who said anything about qualia? LLMs lack the capacity for invention and metacognition. We're a long way from needing to talk about qualia; these things are NOT conscious and there is no question. This website is absurd. "I don't think LLMs are all they're cracked up to be" "YOU'RE JUST MAD BECAUSE QUALIA AND YOU WANT TO BE MAGIC" no the "magic" text generator just writes bad code, my dude Only the people on r/singularity care about qualia in this context and let us remember this is a mechanism without even a memory
    • bulatb 2y ago
      Nobody is thinking about qualia. That's only how I framed it. They just know the machine will never replace them. They're a person, doing person things, and it's a machine. So every time it proves it can, they move the goalposts and invent a truer Scotsman who can never be replaced by a machine. Because they know it can't do person things. It's a machine.
• dist-epoch 2y ago
  > amusing that people minimize it by just calling it pattern matching Even funnier when the typical IQ test, Raven's Progressive Matrices, are 100% about pattern matching.
  • wruza 2y ago
    I once tried myself on an official Mensa test which was very similar to that. It got very boring after I realized they test for mundane & | ^ in varying ways. Dropped it halfway and passed, lol. But I guess you have to be pretty smart to detect logical ops without a hacker background.
• globnomulous 2y ago
  > To try and present this as just random pattern matching seems as just a way to assuage fears of being replaced. LLMs are token predictors. That's all they do. This certainly isn't "random," but insisting that that's what the technology does isn't some sad psychological defense mechanism. It's a statement of fact. > as if human reasoning isn’t built upon recognizing patterns in past experiences. Everybody will be relieved to know you've finally solved this philosophical problem and answered the related scientific questions. Please make sure you cc psychology, behavioral economics, and neuroscience when you share the news with philosophy.
  • raducu 2y ago
    > LLMs are token predictors. And neural nets are "just" matrix multiplications, human brains are "just" chemical reactions
    • globnomulous 2y ago
      I don't know why you're quoting, or stressing, a word I didn't use. I once got into an argument with a date about the existence of God and the soul. She asked whether I really think we're "just" physical stuff. I told her, "no, I'm not saying we're 'just' physical stuff. I'm saying we're physical stuff." That 'just' is simply a statement of how she feels about the idea, not a criticism of what I was claiming. I don't accept that there's anything missing if we're atoms rather than atoms plus magic, because I don't feel any need for there to be magic. Your brain is indeed physical stuff. You also have a mind. You experience your own mind and perceive yourself as an intending being with a guiding intelligence. How that relates to or arises from the physical stuff is not well understood, but everything we know about the properties and capabilities of the mind tells us that it is inextricably related to the body that gives rise to it. Neural nets are indeed matrix multiplication. If you're implying that there is a guiding intelligence, just as there is in the mind, I think you're off in La La Land.
      • wruza 2y ago
        “That’s all they do” and “just” are interchangeable. All you do is transferring electric charges across synapses, and all molecules do is bouncing off each other, but this reduction doesn’t explain neither thinking nor flying. In this case you’re saying “That’s all they do”, which means “just” to others. Don’t even try to argue, cause all I do is typing letters and you’ll only get more letters in response ;)
• mrweasel 2y ago
  > It’s pretty clear that LLMs have improved rapidly and have successfully become better writers than the majority of people alive But that doesn't help much, because for the majority of our writing that's not the issue. LLMs might out do professional writers some day, but without imagination and the desire to sent a message I doubt it will happen any time soon. Where LLMs are useful is in professional communication, because you're right, an LLM can technically write better than most. The issue is that you need to tell the LLM what message you want to convey, and that's where most people fall down. You also need to be able to critically read back your text, place yourself in the position of the receiver of your text, LLM generated or not. Most people, even those in professional communication can't do that. I believe the author is on to something, ChatGPT (and others) are perfectly good tools, and can replace most if not all of the shitty communication and writing, including journalism, present in the world. What it can't do is replace the few really good communicators. Communication is hard, not a lot of people can do it and no LLM is going to help you if you can't formulate your message clearly on your own. There is a darker side of this argument. If something can be killed of by an LLM, is it even worth having? This argument throws a great number of "professionals" under the bus, instantly reducing the value of their jobs to zero. I have family members who do communication for the city, they spend an exorbitant amount of time on flyers, newsletters, Facebook posts and so on, detailing city work, future plan, past events, all that stuff. I doubt anyone really reads it, most of it could probably be written by an LLM, because it always excludes the "why are we doing this", "why should you care" or even "this is expected to impact you in this way". I get a million update from the school about restructuring, hiring of administrators, org-reshuffling... it could all be done by an LLM, but the fact is: No one gives a shit. They just want regular updates from the teachers, and the LLM can't do that. Communication is hard, and LLMs don't change that, they can only help you write out your message, you have to come up with that yourself, and that's the hard part.
• wruza 2y ago
  I’m conflicted about your comment. On one hand, I agree, useless reductions are boring. But on the other, we are living in the “overselling all up in your ears” epoch, which is known to sell pffts as badabooms. So it isn’t baffling to me that a new tech gets old quickly, because it’s not really what was advertised. Our decades-old ideas of AI weren’t feasible a decade ago, but neither are these now. Those who believe in that too much become hu.ma.ne founders and similar self-bullshitters.
  • TeMPOraL 2y ago
    You're right about "living in the “overselling all up in your ears” epoch", but a good first defense against "being sold pffts as badabooms" is to blanket distrust all the marketing copy and whatever the salespeople say, and rely on your own understanding or experience. You may lose out on becoming an early adopter of some good things, but you'll also be spared wasting money on most garbage. With that in mind, I still don't get the dismissal. LLMs are broadly accessible - ever since the first ChatGPT, anyone could easily get access to a SOTA LLM and evaluate it for free; even the limited number of requests on free tiers were then, and now are, sufficient to throw your own personal and professional problems at models and see how they do. Everyone can see for themselves this is not hot air - this is an unexpected technological breakthrough that's already overturning way people approach work, research and living, and it's not slowing down. I'd say: ignore what the companies are selling you - especially those who are just building products on top of LLMs and promising pie in the sky. At this point in time, they aren't doing anything you couldn't do for yourself with ChatGPT or Claude access[0]. We are also beginning to map out the possibilities - two years since the field exploded is very little time. So in short, anything a business does, you could hack yourself - and any speculative idea for AI applications you can imagine, there's likely some research team working on it too. The field is moving both absurdly fast and absurdly slow[1]. So your own personal experience over applying LLMs to your own problems, and watching people around you do the same, is really all you need to tell whether LLMs are hot air or not. My own perspective from doing that: it's not hot air. The layer of hype is thin, and in some areas the hype is downplaying the impact. -- [0] - Yes, obviously a bunch of full-time professionals are doing much more work than you or me over couple evenings of playing with ChatGPT. But they're building a marketable product, and 99% of work that goes into that is something you do not need to do, if you just want to replicate the core functionality for yourself. [1] - I mean, Anthropic just published a report on how exposing "thinking" capability to the model in form of a tool call leads to improvement of performance. On the one hand, kudos to them for testing this properly and publishing. On the other hand, that this was something to do was stupidly obvious ever since 1) OpenAI introduced function calling and 2) people figured out "Let's think step by step" improves model performance - which was back in 2022[2]. It's as clear example as ever that both hype and productization lag behind what anyone paying attention can do themselves at home. [2] - https://arxiv.org/abs/2205.11916 https://arxiv.org/abs/2205.11916