6 ms·

https://youtu.be/qrvK_KuIeJk?t=284 https://youtu.be/qrvK_KuIeJk?t=284 I don’t appreciate your comments. Especially rude to call me desperate and bizarre. Take

https://youtu.be/qrvK_KuIeJk?t=284 https://youtu.be/qrvK_KuIeJk?t=284 I don’t appreciate your comments. Especially rude to call me desperate and bizarre. Take a look at the above video where Geoffrey Hinton basically the god father of AI directly contradicts your statement. I sincerely hope you self reflect and are able to realize that you’re the one completely out of it. Realistically the differences get down to sort of a semantic issue. We both agree that there are things we don’t understand and things that we do understand. It’s just the overall aggregate generalization of this in your opinion comes down to: “we overall do understand” and mine is “we don’t understand shit” Again. Your aggregate is wrong. Utterly. Preeminent Experts are on my side. If we did understand LLMs we’d be able to edit the individual weights of each neuron to remove hallucinations. But we can’t. Like literally we know a solution to the hallucination problem exists. It’s in the weights. We know a certain configuration of weights can remove the hallucination. But even for a single prompt and answer pair we do not know how to modify the weights such that the hallucinations go away. We can’t even quantify, formally define or model what an hallucination is. We describe LLMs in human terms and we manipulate the thing through prompts and vague psychological methods like “chain of thought”. You think planes can work like this? Do we psychologically influence planes to sort of fly correctly? Literally. No other engineered system like this exists on earth where sheer lack of understanding is this large.

sirwhinesalot 1y ago
Sorry for the remark, it was indeed unnecessarily rude and I apologise. That said your appeal to authority means nothing to me. I can simply counter with another appeal to authority like Yann LeCun who thinks LLMs are an evolutionary dead end (and I agree). It matters not that we cannot comprehend them (in the sense of predicting what output it'll give for a given input). Doing that is their job. I also can't comprehend why a support vector machine ends up categorizing spam the way it does. In both cases we understand the algorithms involved which is completely different from our understanding of the brain and its emergent properties.
- ninetyninenine 1y ago
  Apology not accepted. Your initial take was to cast me as out of touch. With my appeal to authority you now realize that my stance occupies a very valid place even though you disagreed. Like it wasn’t just rude, statements like “bizarre” are inaccurate given that Geoffrey agrees with me. So even if I’m not offended by your rudeness it’s not a bizarre take at all. It’s a valid take. That being said. Yan Lecunn is not in agreement with you either. His only claim is that LLMs are not agi and that hallucinations on LLMs can never be removed. The debate here isn’t even about that. The debate here is that we don’t understand LLMs. Whether the LLM is agi or whether we can remove or never remove the hallucinations is COMPLETELY orthogonal. So you actually can’t counter with another appeal to authority. Either way I didn’t “just” appeal to authority. I literally logically countered every single one of your statements as well.
  - sirwhinesalot 1y ago
    There's a huge jump from "we cannot predict the output of an LLM given its input" to "we don't understand LLMs", or that they might be conscious or that this is in any way equivalent to our lack of understanding of the human brain. We also don't understand (in that sense) any other ML model of sufficient size. It learning features we humans cannot come up with is its job. We can understand (in that sense) sufficiently small models because we have enough computational power to translate them to a classical AI model and query it. That means it is a problem of scale, not of some fundamental property unique to LLMs. The bizarre take is being spooked by this. It's been true of simpler models for a very long time. Not a problem.
    - ninetyninenine 1y ago
      >There's a huge jump from "we cannot predict the output of an LLM given its input" to "we don't understand LLMs", or that they might be conscious or that this is in any way equivalent to our lack of understanding of the human brain. No it's not. There's huge similarities between artificial neural networks and the human brain. We not only understand atoms. We understand individual biological neurons. So the problem of understanding the human brain is in actuality ALSO a scaling problem. Granted I realize the human brain is much more complex in terms of network connections and how it rewires dynamically, but my point still stands. Additionally we can't even characterize the meaning of consciousness. Like you're likely thinking consciousness is some sort of extremely complex or very powerful concept. But the word is loaded and we don't know so much that we actually don't know this. Consciousness could be a very trivial thing, we actually have no idea. I agree that the brain is much more complex and much harder to understand and we understand much less. But this does not detract from the claim above that we fundamentally don't understand the LLM to such a degree that we can't even make a statement about whether or not an LLM is conscious or not. To reiterate PART of this comes from the fact that we ALSO don't understand what consciousness is itself. >The bizarre take is being spooked by this. It's been true of simpler models for a very long time. Not a problem. This is an hallucination by you. I'm not spooked at all. I don't know wwhere you're getting that from. My initial post, the tone was one of annoyance not "spooked". I'm annoyed by all the claims from people like you saying "we completely understand LLMs". I mean doesn't this show how similar you are to an LLM? You hallucinated that I was spooked when I indicated no such thing. I think here's a more realistic take: You're spooked. If what I said was categorically true, than you'd be spooked by the implications so part of what you do is to choose the most convenient reality that's within the realm of possibility such that you aren't spooked. Like I understand that classifying consciousness as this trivial thing that can possibly come about as an emergent side effect in an LLM could be a spooky thing. But think rationally. Given how much we don't know both about LLMs, human brains and consciousness, we in ACTUALITY don't know if this is what's going on. We can't make a statement either way. And this is the most logical explanation. It has NOTHING to do with being "spooked" which is an attribute that shouldn't be part of any argument.

sirwhinesalot 1y ago

Sorry for the remark, it was indeed unnecessarily rude and I apologise. That said your appeal to authority means nothing to me. I can simply counter with another appeal to authority like Yann LeCun who thinks LLMs are an evolutionary dead end (and I agree). It matters not that we cannot comprehend them (in the sense of predicting what output it'll give for a given input). Doing that is their job. I also can't comprehend why a support vector machine ends up categorizing spam the way it does. In both cases we understand the algorithms involved which is completely different from our understanding of the brain and its emergent properties.

ninetyninenine 1y ago
Apology not accepted. Your initial take was to cast me as out of touch. With my appeal to authority you now realize that my stance occupies a very valid place even though you disagreed. Like it wasn’t just rude, statements like “bizarre” are inaccurate given that Geoffrey agrees with me. So even if I’m not offended by your rudeness it’s not a bizarre take at all. It’s a valid take. That being said. Yan Lecunn is not in agreement with you either. His only claim is that LLMs are not agi and that hallucinations on LLMs can never be removed. The debate here isn’t even about that. The debate here is that we don’t understand LLMs. Whether the LLM is agi or whether we can remove or never remove the hallucinations is COMPLETELY orthogonal. So you actually can’t counter with another appeal to authority. Either way I didn’t “just” appeal to authority. I literally logically countered every single one of your statements as well.
- sirwhinesalot 1y ago
  There's a huge jump from "we cannot predict the output of an LLM given its input" to "we don't understand LLMs", or that they might be conscious or that this is in any way equivalent to our lack of understanding of the human brain. We also don't understand (in that sense) any other ML model of sufficient size. It learning features we humans cannot come up with is its job. We can understand (in that sense) sufficiently small models because we have enough computational power to translate them to a classical AI model and query it. That means it is a problem of scale, not of some fundamental property unique to LLMs. The bizarre take is being spooked by this. It's been true of simpler models for a very long time. Not a problem.
  - ninetyninenine 1y ago
    >There's a huge jump from "we cannot predict the output of an LLM given its input" to "we don't understand LLMs", or that they might be conscious or that this is in any way equivalent to our lack of understanding of the human brain. No it's not. There's huge similarities between artificial neural networks and the human brain. We not only understand atoms. We understand individual biological neurons. So the problem of understanding the human brain is in actuality ALSO a scaling problem. Granted I realize the human brain is much more complex in terms of network connections and how it rewires dynamically, but my point still stands. Additionally we can't even characterize the meaning of consciousness. Like you're likely thinking consciousness is some sort of extremely complex or very powerful concept. But the word is loaded and we don't know so much that we actually don't know this. Consciousness could be a very trivial thing, we actually have no idea. I agree that the brain is much more complex and much harder to understand and we understand much less. But this does not detract from the claim above that we fundamentally don't understand the LLM to such a degree that we can't even make a statement about whether or not an LLM is conscious or not. To reiterate PART of this comes from the fact that we ALSO don't understand what consciousness is itself. >The bizarre take is being spooked by this. It's been true of simpler models for a very long time. Not a problem. This is an hallucination by you. I'm not spooked at all. I don't know wwhere you're getting that from. My initial post, the tone was one of annoyance not "spooked". I'm annoyed by all the claims from people like you saying "we completely understand LLMs". I mean doesn't this show how similar you are to an LLM? You hallucinated that I was spooked when I indicated no such thing. I think here's a more realistic take: You're spooked. If what I said was categorically true, than you'd be spooked by the implications so part of what you do is to choose the most convenient reality that's within the realm of possibility such that you aren't spooked. Like I understand that classifying consciousness as this trivial thing that can possibly come about as an emergent side effect in an LLM could be a spooky thing. But think rationally. Given how much we don't know both about LLMs, human brains and consciousness, we in ACTUALITY don't know if this is what's going on. We can't make a statement either way. And this is the most logical explanation. It has NOTHING to do with being "spooked" which is an attribute that shouldn't be part of any argument.