4 ms·
i just don't get why people say they don't reason. It's crazy talk. the kv cache is effectively a unidirectional turing machine so it should be possible to en
by throwawaymaths 1y ago
i just don't get why people say they don't reason. It's crazy talk. the kv cache is effectively a unidirectional turing machine so it should be possible to encode "reasoning" in there. and evidence shows that llms occasionally does some light reasoning. just because it's not great at it (hard to train for i suppose) doesn't mean it does it zero.
- briangriffinfan 1y agoWould I be crazy to say that the difference between reasoning and computation is sentience? This is an impulse with no justification but it rings true to me.
- throwawaymaths 1y agofine. prove to me llms aren't sentient. your proof can't just be "vibes"
- briangriffinfan 1y agoSee: "This is an impulse with no justification." In that sense yes my justification absolutely can be vibes, and it is! Suck it!
- throwawaymaths 1y agoi see we are in agreement
- DennisP 1y agoTaking a pragmatic approach, I would say that if the AI accomplishes something that, for humans, requires reasoning, then we should say that the AI is reasoning. That way we can have rational discussions about what the AI can actually do, without diverting into endless discussions about philosophy.
- mattkrause 1y agoEh... Suppose A solves a problem and writes the solution down. B reads the answer and repeats it. Is B reasoning, when asked the same question? What about one that sounds similar?
- briangriffinfan 1y agoCould it be said that reasoning requires intent?
- DennisP 1y agoIf a human does A, that required reasoning. Same for AI. If a human does B, that didn't require reasoning. Same for AI. Believe it or not, people do make an effort to test their AIs on problems that they could not have seen in their training data.
- briangriffinfan 1y agoThe crux of the problem is "what is reasoning?" Of course it's easy enough to call the outputs "equivalent enough" and then use that to say the processes are therefore also "equivalent enough."
- DennisP 1y agoI'm not saying it's enough for the outputs to be "equivalent enough." I am saying that if the outputs and inputs are equivalent, then that's enough to call it the same thing. It might be different internally, but that doesn't really matter for practical purposes.
- briangriffinfan 1y agoI think one of the great lessons of our age will be that things being apparently equivalent, or in more applied terms "good enough," are not equal to equality.