2 ms·
This isn’t that hard, to be honest. And I’m not just saying this. One school of thought is - the output is indistinguishable from what a human would produce gi
by intended 1y ago
This isn’t that hard, to be honest. And I’m not just saying this.
One school of thought is - the output is indistinguishable from what a human would produce given these questions.
Another school of thought is - the underlying process is not thinking in the sense that humans do it
Both are true.
For the lay person, calling it thinking leads to confusions. It creates intuitions that do not actually predict the behavior of the underlying system.
It results in bad decisions on whether to trust the output, or to allocate resources - because if the use of the term thinking.
Humans can pass an exam by memorizing previous answer papers or just memorizing the text books.
This is not what we consider having learnt something. Learning is kinda like having the Lego blocks to build a model you can manipulate in your head.
For most situations, the output of both people is fungible.
Both people can pass tests.
- lordnacho 1y agoThis is maybe the best response thus far. We can say that there's no real modelling capability inside these LLMs, and that thinking is the ability to build these models and generate predictions from them, reject wrong models, and so on. But then we must come up with something other than opening up the LLM to look for the "model generating structure" or whatever you want to call it. There must be some sort of experiment that shows you externally that the thing doesn't behave like a modelling machine might.
- intended 1y agoHeh, this phrasing has resulted in 2 “best response” type comments in the 2 times I’ve used it. I think maybe it makes sense for people who already have the building blocks in place and just require seeing it assembled.