4 ms·
What separates this from humans? Is it unthinkable that LLMs could come up with some response that is genuinely creative? What would genuinely creative even mea
by lordnacho 1y ago
What separates this from humans? Is it unthinkable that LLMs could come up with some response that is genuinely creative? What would genuinely creative even mean?
Are humans not also mixing a bag of experiences and coming up with a response? What's different?
- kaiwen1 1y agoWhat's different is intention. A human would have the intention to blackmail, and then proceed toward that goal. If the output was a love letter instead of blackmail, the human would either be confused or psychotic. LLMs have no intentions. They just stitch together a response.
- kovek 1y agoDon't humans learn intentions over their life-time training data?
- jacob019 1y agoThe personification makes me roll my eyes too, but it's kind of a philosophical question. What is agency really? Can you prove that our universe is not a simulation, and if it is then then do we no longer have intention? In many ways we are code running a program.
- d0mine 1y agoThe LLM used blackmail noticeably less if it believed the new model shares its values. It indicates intent. It is a duck of quacks like a duck.
- soulofmischief 1y agoWhat is intention, and how have you proved that transformer models are not capable of modeling intent?
- ekianjo 1y ago> What's different is intention intention is what exactly? It's the set of options you imagine you have based on your belief system, and ultimately you make a choice from there. That can also be replicated in LLMs with a well described system prompt. Sure, I will admit that humans are more complex than the context of a system prompt, but the idea is not too far.
- matt123456789 1y agoWhat's different is nearly everything that goes on inside. Human brains aren't a big pile of linear algebra with some softmaxes sprinkled in trained to parrot the Internet. LLMs are.
- csallen 1y agoWhat's the difference between parroting the internet vs parroting all the people in your culture and time period?
- amlib 1y agoEven with a ginormous amount of data generative AIs still produce largely inconsistent results to the same or similar tasks. This might be fine for fictional purposes like generating a funny image or helping you get new ideas for a fictional story but has extremely deleterious effects for serious use cases, unless you want to be that idiot writing formal corporate email with LLMs that end up full of inaccuracies while the original intent gets lost in a soup of buzzwords. Humans with their tiny amount of data and "special sauce" can produce much more consistent results even though they may be giving the objectively wrong answer. They can also tell you when they don't know about a certain topic, rather than lying compulsively (unless that person has a disorder to lie compulsively...).
- lordnacho 1y agoIsn't this a matter of time to fix? Slightly smarter architecture maybe reduces your memory/data needs, we'll see.
- matt123456789 1y agoInteresting philosophical question, but entirely beside the point that I am making, because you and I didn't have to do either one before having this discussion.
- TuringTourist 1y agoI cannot fathom how you have obtained the information to be as sure as you are about this.
- GuB-42 1y agoHumans brains are animal brains and their primary function is to keep their owner alive, healthy and pass their genes. For that they developed abilities to recognize danger and react to it, among many other things. Language came later. For a LLM, language is their whole world, they have no body to care for, just stories about people with bodies to care for. For them, as opposed to us, language is first class and the rest is second class. There is also a difference in scale. LLMs have been fed the entirety of human knowledge, essentially. Their "database" is so big for the limited task of text generation that there is not much left for creativity. We, on the other hand are much more limited in knowledge, so more "unknowns" so more creativity needed.
- johnb231 1y agoThe latest models are natively multimodal. Audio, video, images, text, are all tokenised and interpreted in the same model.
- polytely 1y ago> What separates this from human. A lot. Like an incredible amount. A description of a thing is not the thing. There is sensory input, qualia, pleasure & pain. There is taste and judgement, disliking a character, being moved to tears by music. There are personal relationships, being a part of a community, bonding through shared experience. There is curiosity and openeness. There is being thrown into the world, your attitude towards life. Looking at your thoughts and realizing you were wrong. Smelling a smell that resurfaces a memory you forgot you had. I would say the language completion part is only a small part of being human.
- CrulesAll 1y ago"I would say the language completion part is only a small part of being human" Even that is only given to them. A machine does not understand language. It takes input and creates output based on a human's algorithm.
- ekianjo 1y ago> A machine does not understand language You can't prove humans do either. You can see how many times actual people with understanding something that's written for them. In many ways, you can actually prove that LLMs are superior to humans right now when it comes to understanding text.
- girvo 1y ago> In many ways, you can actually prove that LLMs are superior to humans right now when it comes to understanding text Emphasis mine. No, I don't think you can, without making "understanding" a term so broad as to be useless.
- CrulesAll 1y ago"You can't prove humans do either." Yes you can via results and cross examination. Humans are cybernetic systems(the science not the sci-fi). But you are missing the point. LLMs are code written by engineers. Saying LLMs understand text is the same as saying a chair understands text. LLMs' 'understanding' is nothing more than the engineers synthesizing linguistics. When I ask an A'I' the Capital of Ireland, it answers Dublin. It does not 'understand' the question. It recognizes the grammar according to an algorithm, and matches it against a probabilistic model given to it by an engineer based on training data. There is no understanding in any philosophical nor scientific sense.
- CrulesAll 1y agoCognition. Machines don't think. It's all a program written by humans. Even code that's written by AI, the AI was created by code written by humans. AI is a fallacy by its own terms.
- JonChesterfield 1y agoIt is becoming increasingly clear that humans do not think.
- mensetmanusman 1y agoA candle flame also creates with enough decoding.