3 ms·

You can derive #3 from first principles of how the underlying gradient descent and backpropagation work. They approximate functions, therefore when it gets some

by proc0 1y ago

You can derive #3 from first principles of how the underlying gradient descent and backpropagation work. They approximate functions, therefore when it gets something wrong it means something went wrong with either the gradient descent or back propagation, or the training data. We're not talking about getting a certain math question wrong (humans make mistakes like this). We're talking about ridiculous mistakes that are completely random and that humans would never make. I would even go as far to say that calling them mistakes is a stretch. The algorithm simply did not capture some mapping between the prompt and the output answer. This is not how humans make mistakes. Humans build knowledge in some kind of logical knowledge tree, and mistakes arise from how this mechanism works (which we don't know exactly how, but we can certainly conclude it is completely different than transformers and LLMs). Most humans don't make random mistakes but rather something like logical mistakes. tl;dr; It's clear to me LLMs make mistakes in such a way that exposes their simple underlying mechanism, as oppose to humans who make mistakes that contain rich layers of logical reasoning.

ninetyninenine 1y ago
>You can derive #3 from first principles of how the underlying gradient descent and backpropagation work. They approximate functions, therefore when it gets something wrong it means something went wrong with either the gradient descent or back propagation, or the training data. Then derive it from first principles. Use mathematical notation. You can't even draw this curve... it has so many dimensions. The crazy thing is you started hallucinating to me AFTER you told me you can derive it from first principles. You claimed you can derive it, then proceeded to NOT derive it. >We're not talking about getting a certain math question wrong (humans make mistakes like this). We're talking about ridiculous mistakes that are completely random and that humans would never make. I would even go as far to say that calling them mistakes is a stretch. The algorithm simply did not capture some mapping between the prompt and the output answer. Humans make plenty of ridiculous mistakes. Even so humans can lie. How do you know it's not lying? Again. Prove it. >This is not how humans make mistakes. Humans build knowledge in some kind of logical knowledge tree, and mistakes arise from how this mechanism works (which we don't know exactly how, but we can certainly conclude it is completely different than transformers and LLMs). Most humans don't make random mistakes but rather something like logical mistakes. Please derive how humans reason from first principles. I mean this by showing me experimental evidence that shows me the genesis of a signal traveling through the human brain and branching through billions of neurons to produce "reasoning". Oh you can't? Well it looks like you're just making an approximation here? Possibly an Hallucination. Sound familiar? >tl;dr; It's clear to me LLMs make mistakes in such a way that exposes their simple underlying mechanism, as oppose to humans who make mistakes that contain rich layers of logical reasoning. You had to do make several assumptions and leaps in creativity to arrive at your conclusion. It's an hallucination through and through.
- proc0 1y ago
  I said "you can" derive, and I could add "in theory" in the casual sense. I don't have access to these large models, or the training or the time to really analyze these large models to an extent that I can derive their behavior mathematically. My point was that we do know a lot about them, and it's enough to conclude that it's completely different than what humans do with their brains, and this is evident from their output. > Oh you can't? Well it looks like you're just making an approximation here? Possibly an Hallucination. Sound familiar? I don't think anyone would call a wrong theory a hallucination. This is also one of those stretched-out terms that makes the discussion harder. Hallucination means seeing something that is not there, and LLMs cannot see in this way... but I'm not saying AI is completely incapable of "seeing" like humans do. My claim is only about the current state of LLMs, but I digress. If I come up with a theory of human thought, it will be based on logical reasoning as we know it, namely how the brain processes thought. I'm claiming something very simple which is that human thought is a very different algorithm than how current LLMs work. I could grant that LLMs might have component of human thinking, but it still a stretch to call it reasoning or thinking. > You had to do make several assumptions and leaps in creativity to arrive at your conclusion. It's an hallucination through and through. Again, it's not hallucination to be wrong when it comes to humans. An average IQ human that understands the world does not "hallucinate" like LLMs. It just doesn't happen unless we play semantics and call any mistake a hallucination, but that's my contention here.
  - ninetyninenine 1y ago
    >I said "you can" derive, and I could add "in theory" in the casual sense. I don't have access to these large models, or the training or the time to really analyze these large models to an extent that I can derive their behavior mathematically. My point was that we do know a lot about them, and it's enough to conclude that it's completely different than what humans do with their brains, and this is evident from their output. If it can be done. Why hasn't it been done? Why do we have articles like this?: https://futurism.com/anthropic-ceo-admits-ai-ignorance https://futurism.com/anthropic-ceo-admits-ai-ignorance? You can do it in theory but then you have the CEO of anthropic who says nobody knows shit? You need to go to anthropic right away and tell them about your revolutionary discovery here. Or maybe you're just hallucinating. Clearly. >I don't think anyone would call a wrong theory a hallucination. you didn't come up with a theory. You made a claim. And you arrived at that claim with NO evidence. Then to back up your claim you made a "theory" as if it was a substitute for evidence. That's an hallucination. You Hallucinated and your basis of the hallucination was a "theory" and you're aware of what you did. >Again, it's not hallucination to be wrong when it comes to humans. An average IQ human that understands the world does not "hallucinate" like LLMs. It just doesn't happen unless we play semantics and call any mistake a hallucination, but that's my contention here. Making shit up and being wrong is not an hallucination because it comes from humans? I think your entire response is in itself an hallucination.

by proc0 1y ago

ninetyninenine 1y ago

>You can derive #3 from first principles of how the underlying gradient descent and backpropagation work. They approximate functions, therefore when it gets something wrong it means something went wrong with either the gradient descent or back propagation, or the training data. Then derive it from first principles. Use mathematical notation. You can't even draw this curve... it has so many dimensions. The crazy thing is you started hallucinating to me AFTER you told me you can derive it from first principles. You claimed you can derive it, then proceeded to NOT derive it. >We're not talking about getting a certain math question wrong (humans make mistakes like this). We're talking about ridiculous mistakes that are completely random and that humans would never make. I would even go as far to say that calling them mistakes is a stretch. The algorithm simply did not capture some mapping between the prompt and the output answer. Humans make plenty of ridiculous mistakes. Even so humans can lie. How do you know it's not lying? Again. Prove it. >This is not how humans make mistakes. Humans build knowledge in some kind of logical knowledge tree, and mistakes arise from how this mechanism works (which we don't know exactly how, but we can certainly conclude it is completely different than transformers and LLMs). Most humans don't make random mistakes but rather something like logical mistakes. Please derive how humans reason from first principles. I mean this by showing me experimental evidence that shows me the genesis of a signal traveling through the human brain and branching through billions of neurons to produce "reasoning". Oh you can't? Well it looks like you're just making an approximation here? Possibly an Hallucination. Sound familiar? >tl;dr; It's clear to me LLMs make mistakes in such a way that exposes their simple underlying mechanism, as oppose to humans who make mistakes that contain rich layers of logical reasoning. You had to do make several assumptions and leaps in creativity to arrive at your conclusion. It's an hallucination through and through.

proc0 1y ago
I said "you can" derive, and I could add "in theory" in the casual sense. I don't have access to these large models, or the training or the time to really analyze these large models to an extent that I can derive their behavior mathematically. My point was that we do know a lot about them, and it's enough to conclude that it's completely different than what humans do with their brains, and this is evident from their output. > Oh you can't? Well it looks like you're just making an approximation here? Possibly an Hallucination. Sound familiar? I don't think anyone would call a wrong theory a hallucination. This is also one of those stretched-out terms that makes the discussion harder. Hallucination means seeing something that is not there, and LLMs cannot see in this way... but I'm not saying AI is completely incapable of "seeing" like humans do. My claim is only about the current state of LLMs, but I digress. If I come up with a theory of human thought, it will be based on logical reasoning as we know it, namely how the brain processes thought. I'm claiming something very simple which is that human thought is a very different algorithm than how current LLMs work. I could grant that LLMs might have component of human thinking, but it still a stretch to call it reasoning or thinking. > You had to do make several assumptions and leaps in creativity to arrive at your conclusion. It's an hallucination through and through. Again, it's not hallucination to be wrong when it comes to humans. An average IQ human that understands the world does not "hallucinate" like LLMs. It just doesn't happen unless we play semantics and call any mistake a hallucination, but that's my contention here.
- ninetyninenine 1y ago
  >I said "you can" derive, and I could add "in theory" in the casual sense. I don't have access to these large models, or the training or the time to really analyze these large models to an extent that I can derive their behavior mathematically. My point was that we do know a lot about them, and it's enough to conclude that it's completely different than what humans do with their brains, and this is evident from their output. If it can be done. Why hasn't it been done? Why do we have articles like this?: https://futurism.com/anthropic-ceo-admits-ai-ignorance https://futurism.com/anthropic-ceo-admits-ai-ignorance? You can do it in theory but then you have the CEO of anthropic who says nobody knows shit? You need to go to anthropic right away and tell them about your revolutionary discovery here. Or maybe you're just hallucinating. Clearly. >I don't think anyone would call a wrong theory a hallucination. you didn't come up with a theory. You made a claim. And you arrived at that claim with NO evidence. Then to back up your claim you made a "theory" as if it was a substitute for evidence. That's an hallucination. You Hallucinated and your basis of the hallucination was a "theory" and you're aware of what you did. >Again, it's not hallucination to be wrong when it comes to humans. An average IQ human that understands the world does not "hallucinate" like LLMs. It just doesn't happen unless we play semantics and call any mistake a hallucination, but that's my contention here. Making shit up and being wrong is not an hallucination because it comes from humans? I think your entire response is in itself an hallucination.