4 ms·

You are assuming that because we measure an undergrad's ability to critical think with undergrad essays, that is a valid test for the LLM's capacity to think --

You are assuming that because we measure an undergrad's ability to critical think with undergrad essays, that is a valid test for the LLM's capacity to think -- it isnt. This measures only, extremely narrowly, the LLM's capacity to produce undergrad essays. Society doesnt require undergrad essays. Nor does it require yet another webserver, iot script, or weekend hobby project. Society has all of those things already, hence the ability to train LLMs to produce them. "Society", the economy, etc. are operating under competitive optimisation processes -- so that what is valuable, on the margin, is what isn't readily produced. What is readily produced, has been produced, is being produced, and so on. Solved problems are solved problems. Intelligence is the capacity of animals to operate "on the margin" -- that's why we have it: Intelligence is a process of rapid adaption to novel circumstances, it is not, unlike puzzle-solvers like to claim, the solution to puzzles. Once a puzzle is solved so there are historical exemplars of its solution, it no longer requires intelligence to solve it -- hence using an LLM. (In this sense computer science is the art of removing intelligence from the solving of unsolved and unposed puzzles). LLMs surface "solved problems" more readily than search engines. There's no evidence, and plenty against, that they provide the value of intelligence -- their ability to advance one's capabilities under compeititon from others, is literally zero -- since all players in the economic (, social, etc.) game have access to the LLM. The LLM itself, in this sense, not only has no intelligence, but doesnt even show up in intelligent processes that we follow. It's washed out immediately -- it removes from our task lists, some "tasks that require intelligence", leaving the remainder for our actual intelligence to engage with.

throwawaymaths 1y ago
if this is how you feel you haven't really used llms enough or are deliberately ignoring sporadically appearing data. github copilot for me routinely solves microproblems in unexplored areas it has no business knowing. Not always, but it's also not zero. ...and i encourage you to be more realistic about the market and what society "needs". does society really need an army of consultants at accenture? i dont know. but they are getting paid a lot. does that mean the allocation of resources is wrong? or does that mean theres something cynical but real in their existence?
- 827a 1y ago
  Bro you have as serious problem with reading the first few sentences of a comment, finding something you disagree with, then skipping over the entire rest of the comment, characterizing it as "well they must entirely disagree with my worldview and now I'm under attack". You gotta take a step back.
nonameiguess 1y ago
I'd just like to say, with unfortunately little to add, that your comments on this article are terrific to read. You've captured perfectly how I have felt about LLMs roughly from the first time they came out to how I still feel now. They're utterly amazingly technology that truly do feel like magic, except that I have enough of a background in math modeling and ML to de-mystify them. But the key difference between a model and a human is exactly what you just said. It's what animals can do on the margin. Nobody taught humans language. Each of us individually who are alive today, sure. But go back far enough and humanity invented language. We directly interact with the physical world, develop mental models of it, observe that we are able to make sounds and symbols and somehow come to a mutual agreement that they should mean something in rough analogy to these independent but sufficiently similar mental models. That is magic. Nobody, no programmer, no mathematician, no investor, has any idea how humanity did that, and has no idea how to get a machine to do it, either. Replicating the accomplishments of something else is a tremendous feat and it will get our software very, very far, maybe as far as we ever need to really get it. But it is not doing what animals did. It didn't just figure this shit out on its own. Maybe somewhat ironically, I don't even know that this is a real limitation that current techniques for developing statistical models can't overcome. Put some "AIs" loose in robot bodies, let them freely move about the world trying to accomplish the simple goal of continuing to exist, with cooperation allowed, and they may very well develop ways to encode knowledge, share it with each other, and write it down somehow to pass on to the future so they don't need to continually re-learn everything, especially if they get millions of years to do it. It's obvious, though, that we don't even want this. It might be interesting purely as an experiment, but it probably isn't going to lead to any useful tools. What we do now actually does lead to useful tools. To me, that should tell us something in these discussions. Trying to figure if X piece of software is or isn't cognitively equal to or better than a human in some respect is a tiring, pointless exercise. Who cares? Is it useful to us or not? What are its uses? What are its limitations? We're just trying to automate some toil here, aren't we? We're not trying to play God and create a separate form of life with its own purposes.

throwawaymaths 1y ago

if this is how you feel you haven't really used llms enough or are deliberately ignoring sporadically appearing data. github copilot for me routinely solves microproblems in unexplored areas it has no business knowing. Not always, but it's also not zero. ...and i encourage you to be more realistic about the market and what society "needs". does society really need an army of consultants at accenture? i dont know. but they are getting paid a lot. does that mean the allocation of resources is wrong? or does that mean theres something cynical but real in their existence?

827a 1y ago
Bro you have as serious problem with reading the first few sentences of a comment, finding something you disagree with, then skipping over the entire rest of the comment, characterizing it as "well they must entirely disagree with my worldview and now I'm under attack". You gotta take a step back.

nonameiguess 1y ago

I'd just like to say, with unfortunately little to add, that your comments on this article are terrific to read. You've captured perfectly how I have felt about LLMs roughly from the first time they came out to how I still feel now. They're utterly amazingly technology that truly do feel like magic, except that I have enough of a background in math modeling and ML to de-mystify them. But the key difference between a model and a human is exactly what you just said. It's what animals can do on the margin. Nobody taught humans language. Each of us individually who are alive today, sure. But go back far enough and humanity invented language. We directly interact with the physical world, develop mental models of it, observe that we are able to make sounds and symbols and somehow come to a mutual agreement that they should mean something in rough analogy to these independent but sufficiently similar mental models. That is magic. Nobody, no programmer, no mathematician, no investor, has any idea how humanity did that, and has no idea how to get a machine to do it, either. Replicating the accomplishments of something else is a tremendous feat and it will get our software very, very far, maybe as far as we ever need to really get it. But it is not doing what animals did. It didn't just figure this shit out on its own. Maybe somewhat ironically, I don't even know that this is a real limitation that current techniques for developing statistical models can't overcome. Put some "AIs" loose in robot bodies, let them freely move about the world trying to accomplish the simple goal of continuing to exist, with cooperation allowed, and they may very well develop ways to encode knowledge, share it with each other, and write it down somehow to pass on to the future so they don't need to continually re-learn everything, especially if they get millions of years to do it. It's obvious, though, that we don't even want this. It might be interesting purely as an experiment, but it probably isn't going to lead to any useful tools. What we do now actually does lead to useful tools. To me, that should tell us something in these discussions. Trying to figure if X piece of software is or isn't cognitively equal to or better than a human in some respect is a tiring, pointless exercise. Who cares? Is it useful to us or not? What are its uses? What are its limitations? We're just trying to automate some toil here, aren't we? We're not trying to play God and create a separate form of life with its own purposes.