4 ms·

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 analy

by 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.
- proc0 1y ago
  > Making shit up and being wrong is not an hallucination because it comes from humans? Yes. And no, I am not "hallucinating" this text even if it's wrong. I have a structured pattern of thoughts with beliefs. LLMs don't generate these structured thoughts, a.k.a. logic and reasoning... which since you mention it, Anthropic did do research on this: > This is concerning because it suggests that, should an AI system find hacks, bugs, or shortcuts in a task, we wouldn’t be able to rely on their Chain-of-Thought to check whether they’re cheating or genuinely completing the task at hand. https://www.anthropic.com/research/reasoning-models-dont-say-think https://www.anthropic.com/research/reasoning-models-dont-say... So there is definitely work happening to try to understand and see how LLMs work, and we are finding out it is very different than the human mind. That isn't to say they are not useful, or there will never be an AI that does this. The point is that current LLMs are not moving in that direction, but they give the appearance as if they are. They hype it up as if we will have these junior developers implying we can just interact with them like humans. It's looking more like they are tools that respond to natural language with noticeable limitations, and that is a different framing.
  - ninetyninenine 1y ago
    Having a structured pattern of thoughts and beliefs doesn’t make that structure correct. LLMs can’t outline their own thoughts in clearly defined structure too. Let’s see where there are gaps with your thinking: First the topic of the convo is that we don’t know anything about LLMs so we can’t make a claim that LLMs can’t reason. Your response doesn’t have anything to do with that anymore. You’ve went off topic into hype, what anthropic is trying to find out about LLMs and a bunch of other tangents and have failed to address the topic of: LLMs can’t reason. Even LLMs don’t hallucinate past the give topic.
    - proc0 1y ago
      I think I've already given sufficient logic to demonstrate LLMs don't "reason" like humans (whatever it is we want to call "reason", it is not the same). You keep using "hallucinate" to compare LLMs and humans, but the word itself demonstrates the difference. Human hallucination is about incorrect perception of the world, not generating tokens. These are meaningful differences. You say "we don't know anything about LLMs" but we do know how to make them, and how they are structured, and Anthropic has been making progress in explaining their side effects. Your argument is not sound, and would include any form of computation as reasoning, so we could just say our phones and laptops are all doing reasoning as well. After all we don't know what the human brain is doing and it probably is a computer, therefore all computers reason. As you can see that does not sound right.

by proc0 1y ago

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.

proc0 1y ago
> Making shit up and being wrong is not an hallucination because it comes from humans? Yes. And no, I am not "hallucinating" this text even if it's wrong. I have a structured pattern of thoughts with beliefs. LLMs don't generate these structured thoughts, a.k.a. logic and reasoning... which since you mention it, Anthropic did do research on this: > This is concerning because it suggests that, should an AI system find hacks, bugs, or shortcuts in a task, we wouldn’t be able to rely on their Chain-of-Thought to check whether they’re cheating or genuinely completing the task at hand. https://www.anthropic.com/research/reasoning-models-dont-say-think https://www.anthropic.com/research/reasoning-models-dont-say... So there is definitely work happening to try to understand and see how LLMs work, and we are finding out it is very different than the human mind. That isn't to say they are not useful, or there will never be an AI that does this. The point is that current LLMs are not moving in that direction, but they give the appearance as if they are. They hype it up as if we will have these junior developers implying we can just interact with them like humans. It's looking more like they are tools that respond to natural language with noticeable limitations, and that is a different framing.
- ninetyninenine 1y ago
  Having a structured pattern of thoughts and beliefs doesn’t make that structure correct. LLMs can’t outline their own thoughts in clearly defined structure too. Let’s see where there are gaps with your thinking: First the topic of the convo is that we don’t know anything about LLMs so we can’t make a claim that LLMs can’t reason. Your response doesn’t have anything to do with that anymore. You’ve went off topic into hype, what anthropic is trying to find out about LLMs and a bunch of other tangents and have failed to address the topic of: LLMs can’t reason. Even LLMs don’t hallucinate past the give topic.
  - proc0 1y ago
    I think I've already given sufficient logic to demonstrate LLMs don't "reason" like humans (whatever it is we want to call "reason", it is not the same). You keep using "hallucinate" to compare LLMs and humans, but the word itself demonstrates the difference. Human hallucination is about incorrect perception of the world, not generating tokens. These are meaningful differences. You say "we don't know anything about LLMs" but we do know how to make them, and how they are structured, and Anthropic has been making progress in explaining their side effects. Your argument is not sound, and would include any form of computation as reasoning, so we could just say our phones and laptops are all doing reasoning as well. After all we don't know what the human brain is doing and it probably is a computer, therefore all computers reason. As you can see that does not sound right.