11 ms·
Yes, humans are obviously limited in the things we can instinctively, intuitively predict. That's not really the point. The point is whether something that has
by MostlyStable 2y ago
Yes, humans are obviously limited in the things we can instinctively, intuitively predict. That's not really the point. The point is whether something that has been trained to do more complicated predictions will have the a similar feeling when doing those predictions (of being intuitive and natural), or if it will feel more explicit, like when a human is doing the calculus necessary to predict where the same ball is going to go.
- defrost 2y agoHumans have both intuition and explicit calculation, predictive calculation can be stable or inherently unstable. The point is whether a LLM has any feelings ...
- MostlyStable 2y agoMy phrase "future, hypothetical" was trying very specifically to avoid any discussions about whether current AI have qualia or internal experiences. I was trying to think about whether something which did have some kind of coherent internal experience (assumed for the sake of the idle thought), but which had far greater predictive abilities than humans, would have the same intuitive feeling when making those much more complicated predictions. It was an idle thought that was only barely tangentially related to the article in question, and was not meant to be a comment at all on the model in the article or on any current (or even very near future) AI model. I don't expect anyone would have an answer, given the extreme degree of hypothetical-ness.
- criddell 2y agoWhen you say "The point is whether a LLM has any feelings..." are you thinking specifically about an LLM, or AI in general? I've seen nothing to indicate that Project Aardvark is using an LLM for weather prediction.