4 ms·
>> LLMs don't think. At all. >How can you so confidently proclaim that? Do you know why they're called 'models' by chance? They're statistical, weighted mode
by dgfitz 1y ago
>> LLMs don't think. At all.
>How can you so confidently proclaim that?
Do you know why they're called 'models' by chance?
They're statistical, weighted models. They use statistical weights to predict the next token.
They don't think. They don't reason. Math, weights, and turtles all the way down. Calling anything an LLM does "thinking" or "reasoning" is incorrect. Calling any of this "AI" is even worse.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- phantom784 1y agoBut is the connection of neurons in our brains any more than a statistical model implemented with cells rather than silicon?
- scarmig 1y agoYou're forgetting the power of the divine ineffable human soul, which turns fatty bags of electrolytes from statistical predictors into the holy spirit.
- fl7305 1y agoAn LLM is very much like a CPU. It takes inputs and performs processing on them based on its working memory and previous inputs and outputs, and then produces a new output and updates its working memory. It then loops back to do the same thing again and produce more outputs. Sure, they were evolved using criteria based on next token prediction. But you were also evolved, only using critera for higher reproduction. So are you really thinking, or just trying to reproduce?
- hodgehog11 1y agoIf you have an extremely simple theory that debunks the status quo, it is safer to assume there is something wrong with your theory, than to assume you are on to something that no one else figured out. You are implicitly assuming that no statistical model acting on next-token prediction can, conditional on context, replicate all of the outputs that a human would give. This is a provably false claim, mathematically speaking, as human output under these assumptions would satisfy the conditions of Kolmogorov existence.
- dgfitz 1y agoSure. However, the status quo is that "AI" doesn't exist, computers only ever do exactly what they are programmed to do, and "thinking/reasoning" wasn't on the table. I am not the one that needs to disprove the status quo.
- hodgehog11 1y agoNo, the status quo is that we really do not know. You made a claim why it is impossible for LLMs to think on the grounds that they are statistical models, so I disproved your claim. If it really was that simple to dismiss the possibility of "AI", no one would be worried about it.
- dgfitz 1y agoI never said it was impossible. Re-read it, and kindly stop putting words in my mouth. :)
- uh_uh 1y agoDo you think Hinton and Ilya haven’t heard these arguments?