3 ms·

> upon interacting with LLMs, we can see and feel and hear that thought is taking place uh.. no we can't?

nullstyle 1y ago
Then you aren't paying attention, IMO. An example for the dense: A friend of mine used his conversations with ChatGPT to get through a tough spot in his marriage. The distinction between what happened in ChatGPT's internal processing and what would have happened in the internal processing of the brain of a family therapist is a meaningless distinction. My friend was able to benefit from the thoughtwork of ChatGPT.
- AstroBen 1y ago
  Calling people dense isn't helping them engage with you
  - nullstyle 1y ago
    I was responding reciprocally to your attitude. Care to differentiate thought and thoughtwork for us?
simonw 1y ago
Screenshot for you: https://gist.github.com/simonw/5b051aa10e97ac86eeb539f51a828861?permalink_comment_id=5593669#gistcomment-5593669 https://gist.github.com/simonw/5b051aa10e97ac86eeb539f51a828... That looks like thinking. If you want to argue it's not thinking you are absolutely welcome to, but you need to say more than just "no we can't?".
- 613style 1y ago
  The sharpest cries of, "that's not thinking!" always seem to have an air of desperation about them. It's as if I'm special, and I think, and maybe thinking is what makes me special, so if LLMs think then I'm less special. At some point the cry will change to, "It only looks like thinking from the outside!" And some time after that: "It only looks conscious from the outside..."
- emp17344 1y ago
  This paper makes the claim that the “reasoning” output these models produce isn’t a necessary component of these models, and is likely unrelated to the actual final output: https://arxiv.org/abs/2505.13775 https://arxiv.org/abs/2505.13775 Just because these models are good at outputting text that appears to be a series of thoughts, doesn’t mean that LLMs are thinking.
- AstroBen 1y ago
  I'm finding quite often from reading these streams in my own chats there's a lack of strong logical consistency from one chunk to the next where it should clearly be there. That combined with the output not being consistent with the 'thoughts'. I'll screenshot it next time I see a good example 'thinking' here needs a clearer definition. Even for us humans the language is just an after the fact attempt at describing what went on, or is going on inside our heads Consider: https://www.unsw.edu.au/newsroom/news/2019/03/our-brains-reveal-our-choices-before-were-even-aware-of-them--st https://www.unsw.edu.au/newsroom/news/2019/03/our-brains-rev...
- ustad 1y ago
  I’ve got one of those old 1980s chess computers with Kasparov’s face on it. Before it makes a move, a little LED labeled ‘thinking’ blinks for a while. Looks like thinking, too.

Then you aren't paying attention, IMO. An example for the dense: A friend of mine used his conversations with ChatGPT to get through a tough spot in his marriage. The distinction between what happened in ChatGPT's internal processing and what would have happened in the internal processing of the brain of a family therapist is a meaningless distinction. My friend was able to benefit from the thoughtwork of ChatGPT.

AstroBen 1y ago
Calling people dense isn't helping them engage with you
- nullstyle 1y ago
  I was responding reciprocally to your attitude. Care to differentiate thought and thoughtwork for us?

simonw 1y ago

Screenshot for you: https://gist.github.com/simonw/5b051aa10e97ac86eeb539f51a828861?permalink_comment_id=5593669#gistcomment-5593669 https://gist.github.com/simonw/5b051aa10e97ac86eeb539f51a828... That looks like thinking. If you want to argue it's not thinking you are absolutely welcome to, but you need to say more than just "no we can't?".

613style 1y ago
The sharpest cries of, "that's not thinking!" always seem to have an air of desperation about them. It's as if I'm special, and I think, and maybe thinking is what makes me special, so if LLMs think then I'm less special. At some point the cry will change to, "It only looks like thinking from the outside!" And some time after that: "It only looks conscious from the outside..."
emp17344 1y ago
This paper makes the claim that the “reasoning” output these models produce isn’t a necessary component of these models, and is likely unrelated to the actual final output: https://arxiv.org/abs/2505.13775 https://arxiv.org/abs/2505.13775 Just because these models are good at outputting text that appears to be a series of thoughts, doesn’t mean that LLMs are thinking.
AstroBen 1y ago
I'm finding quite often from reading these streams in my own chats there's a lack of strong logical consistency from one chunk to the next where it should clearly be there. That combined with the output not being consistent with the 'thoughts'. I'll screenshot it next time I see a good example 'thinking' here needs a clearer definition. Even for us humans the language is just an after the fact attempt at describing what went on, or is going on inside our heads Consider: https://www.unsw.edu.au/newsroom/news/2019/03/our-brains-reveal-our-choices-before-were-even-aware-of-them--st https://www.unsw.edu.au/newsroom/news/2019/03/our-brains-rev...
ustad 1y ago
I’ve got one of those old 1980s chess computers with Kasparov’s face on it. Before it makes a move, a little LED labeled ‘thinking’ blinks for a while. Looks like thinking, too.