4 ms·

It's very very good at sounding like it understands stuff. Almost as good as actually understanding stuff in some fields, sure. But it's definitely not the same

It's very very good at sounding like it understands stuff. Almost as good as actually understanding stuff in some fields, sure. But it's definitely not the same. It will confidently analyze and describe a chess position using advanced sounding book techniques, but its all fundamentally flawed, often missing things that are extremely obvious (like, an undefended queen free to take) while trying to sound like its a seasoned expert - that is if it doesn't completely hallucinate moves that are not allowed by the rules of the game. This is how it works in other fields I am able to analyse. It's very good at sounding like it knows what its doing, speaking at the level of a masters level student or higher, but its actual appraisal of problems is often wrong in a way very different to how humans make mistakes. Another great example is getting it to solve cryptic crosswords from back in the day. It often knows the answer already in its training set, but it hasn't seen anyone write out the reasoning for the answer, so if you ask it to explain, it makes nonsensical leaps (claiming birch rhymes with tyre level nonsense)

filleduchaos 1y ago
If anyone wants to see the chess comprehension breakdown in action, the YouTuber GothamChess occasionally puts out videos where he plays against a new or recently-updated LLM. Hanging a queen is not evidence of a lack of intelligence - even the very best human grandmasters will occasionally do that. But in pretty much every single video, the LLM loses the plot entirely after barely a couple dozen moves and starts to resurrect already-captured pieces, move pieces to squares they can't get to, etc - all while keeping the same confident "expert" tone.
DiogenesKynikos 1y ago
A sufficiently good simulation of understanding is functionally equivalent to understanding. At that point, the question of whether the model really does understand is pointless. We might as well argue about whether humans understand.
- andrei_says_ 1y ago
  In the Catch me if you Can movie, Leo diCaprio’s character wears a surgeon’s gown and confidently says “I concur”. What I’m hearing here is that you are willing to get your surgery done by him and not by one of the real doctors - if he is capable of pronouncing enough doctor-sounding phrases.
  - bsenftner 1y ago
    If that's what you're hearing, then you're not thinking it through. Of course one would not want an AI acting as a doctor as one's real doctor, but a medical or law school graduate studying for a license sure would appreciate a Socratic tutor in their specialization. Likewise, on the job in a technical specialization, a sounding board is of more value when it follows along, potentially with a virtual board of debate, and questions when logical drifts occur. It's not AI thinking for one, it is AI critically assisting their exploration through Socratic debate. Do not place AI in charge of critical decisions, but do place them in the assistance of people figuring out such situations.
    - amlib 1y ago
      The doctors analogy still applies, that "socratic tutor" LLM is actually a charlatan that sounds, to the untrained mind, like a competent person, but in actuality is a complete farce. I still wouldn't trust that.
    - scrubs 1y ago
      The doctor example is good because it puts the consumer at risk. Now, it's not a parlor game. Now can llm do the same?
  - DiogenesKynikos 1y ago
    Leo diCaprio's character says nothing of substance in that scene. If you ask an LLM a question about most subjects, it will give you a highly intelligent, substantive answer.
    - vrighter 1y ago
- timacles 1y ago
  > A sufficiently good simulation of understanding is functionally equivalent to understanding. This is just a thing to say that has no substantial meaning. - What is "sufficiently" mean? - What is functionally equivalent? - and what is even understanding? All just vague hand waving We're not philosophizing here, we're talking about practical results and clearly, in the current context, it does not deliver in that area. > At that point, the question of whether the model really does understand is pointless. You're right it is pointless, because you are suggesting something that doesnt exist. And the current models cannot understand
  - DiogenesKynikos 1y ago
    The current models obviously understand a lot. They would easily understand your comment, for example, and give an intelligent answer in response. The whole "the current models cannot understand" mantra is more religious than anything.
  - famouswaffles 1y ago
    >We're not philosophizing here, we're talking about practical results and clearly, in the current context, it does not deliver in that area. Except it clearly does, in a lot of areas. You can't take a 'practical results trump all' stance and come out of it saying LLMs understand nothing. They understand a lot of things just fine.
- RugnirViking 1y ago
  thats the point though, its not sufficient. Not even slightly. It constantly makes obvious mistakes, and cannot keep things coherent I was almost going to explicitly mention your point but deleted it because I thought people would be able to understand. This is not a philosophy/theology sitting around handwringing about "oh but would a sufficiently powerful LLM be able to dance on the head of a pin". We're talking about a thing, that actually exists, that you can actually test. In a whole lot of real-world scenarios that you try to throw at it, it fails in strange and unpredictable ways. Ways that it will swear up and down it did not do. It will lie to your face. It's convincing. But then it will lose in chess, it will fuck up running a vending machine buisness, it will get lost coding and reinvent the same functions over and over, it will make completely nonsensical answers to crossword puzzles. This is not an intelligence that is unlimited, it is a deeply flawed two year old that just so happens to have read the entire output of human writing. It's a fundamentally different mind to ours, and makes different mistakes. It sounds convincing and yet fails, constantly. It will tell you a four step explanation of how its going to do something, then fail to execute four simple steps.
  - bsenftner 1y ago
    Which is exactly why is it insane that the industry is hell bent on creating autonomous automation through LLMs. Rube Goldberg machines is what will be created, and if civilization survives that insanity it will be looked back upon as one grand stupid era.
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]

filleduchaos 1y ago

If anyone wants to see the chess comprehension breakdown in action, the YouTuber GothamChess occasionally puts out videos where he plays against a new or recently-updated LLM. Hanging a queen is not evidence of a lack of intelligence - even the very best human grandmasters will occasionally do that. But in pretty much every single video, the LLM loses the plot entirely after barely a couple dozen moves and starts to resurrect already-captured pieces, move pieces to squares they can't get to, etc - all while keeping the same confident "expert" tone.

DiogenesKynikos 1y ago

A sufficiently good simulation of understanding is functionally equivalent to understanding. At that point, the question of whether the model really does understand is pointless. We might as well argue about whether humans understand.

andrei_says_ 1y ago
In the Catch me if you Can movie, Leo diCaprio’s character wears a surgeon’s gown and confidently says “I concur”. What I’m hearing here is that you are willing to get your surgery done by him and not by one of the real doctors - if he is capable of pronouncing enough doctor-sounding phrases.
- bsenftner 1y ago
  If that's what you're hearing, then you're not thinking it through. Of course one would not want an AI acting as a doctor as one's real doctor, but a medical or law school graduate studying for a license sure would appreciate a Socratic tutor in their specialization. Likewise, on the job in a technical specialization, a sounding board is of more value when it follows along, potentially with a virtual board of debate, and questions when logical drifts occur. It's not AI thinking for one, it is AI critically assisting their exploration through Socratic debate. Do not place AI in charge of critical decisions, but do place them in the assistance of people figuring out such situations.
  - amlib 1y ago
    The doctors analogy still applies, that "socratic tutor" LLM is actually a charlatan that sounds, to the untrained mind, like a competent person, but in actuality is a complete farce. I still wouldn't trust that.
  - scrubs 1y ago
    The doctor example is good because it puts the consumer at risk. Now, it's not a parlor game. Now can llm do the same?
- DiogenesKynikos 1y ago
  Leo diCaprio's character says nothing of substance in that scene. If you ask an LLM a question about most subjects, it will give you a highly intelligent, substantive answer.
  - vrighter 1y ago
timacles 1y ago
> A sufficiently good simulation of understanding is functionally equivalent to understanding. This is just a thing to say that has no substantial meaning. - What is "sufficiently" mean? - What is functionally equivalent? - and what is even understanding? All just vague hand waving We're not philosophizing here, we're talking about practical results and clearly, in the current context, it does not deliver in that area. > At that point, the question of whether the model really does understand is pointless. You're right it is pointless, because you are suggesting something that doesnt exist. And the current models cannot understand
- DiogenesKynikos 1y ago
  The current models obviously understand a lot. They would easily understand your comment, for example, and give an intelligent answer in response. The whole "the current models cannot understand" mantra is more religious than anything.
- famouswaffles 1y ago
  >We're not philosophizing here, we're talking about practical results and clearly, in the current context, it does not deliver in that area. Except it clearly does, in a lot of areas. You can't take a 'practical results trump all' stance and come out of it saying LLMs understand nothing. They understand a lot of things just fine.
RugnirViking 1y ago
thats the point though, its not sufficient. Not even slightly. It constantly makes obvious mistakes, and cannot keep things coherent I was almost going to explicitly mention your point but deleted it because I thought people would be able to understand. This is not a philosophy/theology sitting around handwringing about "oh but would a sufficiently powerful LLM be able to dance on the head of a pin". We're talking about a thing, that actually exists, that you can actually test. In a whole lot of real-world scenarios that you try to throw at it, it fails in strange and unpredictable ways. Ways that it will swear up and down it did not do. It will lie to your face. It's convincing. But then it will lose in chess, it will fuck up running a vending machine buisness, it will get lost coding and reinvent the same functions over and over, it will make completely nonsensical answers to crossword puzzles. This is not an intelligence that is unlimited, it is a deeply flawed two year old that just so happens to have read the entire output of human writing. It's a fundamentally different mind to ours, and makes different mistakes. It sounds convincing and yet fails, constantly. It will tell you a four step explanation of how its going to do something, then fail to execute four simple steps.
- bsenftner 1y ago
  Which is exactly why is it insane that the industry is hell bent on creating autonomous automation through LLMs. Rube Goldberg machines is what will be created, and if civilization survives that insanity it will be looked back upon as one grand stupid era.

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]