4 ms·

>The real problem is just that they don't have brains, and can't think. That would have had more weight if you haven't just described junior developer behavior

>The real problem is just that they don't have brains, and can't think. That would have had more weight if you haven't just described junior developer behavior beforehand. "LLMs can't think" is anthropocentric cope. It's the old AI effect all over again - people would rather die than admit that there's very little practical difference between their own "thinking" and that of an AI chatbot.

gnulinux996 1y ago
> That would have had more weight if you haven't just described junior developer behavior beforehand. Effectively telling that junior developers "don't have brains" is in very bad taste and offensively wrong. > people would rather die than admit that there's very little practical difference between their own "thinking" and that of an AI chatbot. Would you like to elaborate on this? I was told that McDonalds employees would have been replaced by now, self-driving cars will be driving the streets and new medicines would have been discovered. It's been a couple of years that "AI" is out, and no singularity yet.
- ACCount37 1y ago
  LLMs use the same type of "abstract thinking" process as humans. Which is why they can struggle with 6-digit multiplication (unlike computer code, very much like humans), but not with parsing out metaphors or describing what love is (unlike computer code, very much like humans). The capability profile of an LLM is amusingly humanlike. Setting the bar for "AI" at "singularity" is a bit like setting requirements for "fusion" at "creating a star more powerful than the Sun". Very good for dismissing all existing fusion research, but not any good for actually understanding fusion. If we had two humans, one with IQ 80 and another with IQ 120, we wouldn't say that one of them isn't "thinking". It's just that one of them is much worse at "thinking" than the other. Which is where a lot of LLMs are currently at. They are, for all intents and purposes, thinking. Are they any good at it though? Depends on what you want from them. Sometimes they're good enough, and sometimes they aren't.
  - habinero 1y ago
    > LLMs use the same type of "abstract thinking" process as humans It's surprising you say that, considering we don't actually understand the mechanisms behind how humans think. We do know that human brains are so good at patterns, they'll even see patterns and such that aren't actually there. LLMs are a pile of statistics that can mimic human speech patterns if you don't tax them too hard. Anyone who thinks otherwise is just Clever Hans-ing themselves.
    - ACCount37 1y ago
      We understand the outcomes well enough. LLMs converge onto a similar process by being trained on human-made text. Is LLM reasoning a 1:1 replica of what the human brain does? No, but it does something very similar in function. I see no reason to think that humans are anything more than "a pile of statistics that can mimic human speech patterns if you don't tax them too hard". Humans can get offended when you point it out though. It's too dismissive of their unique human gift of intelligence that a chatbot clearly doesn't have.
      - habinero 1y ago
        > We understand the outcomes well enough We do not, in fact, "understand the outcomes well enough" lol. I don't really care if you want to have an AI waifu or whatever. I'm pointing out that you're vastly underestimating the complexity behind human brains and cognition. And that complex human brain of yours is attributing behaviors to a statistical model that the model does not, in fact, possess.
        ACCount37 1y ago
        [flagged]
        pferde 1y ago
        > "We don't fully understand how a bird works, and thus: "wind tunnel" is useless, Wright brothers are utter fools, what their crude mechanical contraptions are doing isn't actually flight, and heavier than air flight is obviously unattainable." Completely false equivalency. We did in fact back then completely understand "how a bird works", how the physics of flight work. The problem getting man-made flying vehicles off the ground was mostly about not having good enough materials to build one (plus some economics-related issues). Whereas in case of AI, we are very far from even slightly understanding how our brains work, how the actual thinking happens.
- XenophileJKO 1y ago
  Living in Silicon Valley, there are MANY self driving cars driving around right now. At the stop light the other day, I was between 3 of them without any humans in them. It is so weird when people pull self driving cars out as some kind of counter example. Just because something doesn't happen on the most optimistic time scale, doesn't mean it isn't happening. They just happen slowly and then all at once.
  - jimbo808 1y ago
    15 years ago they said truck drivers would be obsolete in 1-2 years. They are still not obsolete, and they aren't on track to be any time soon, either.
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]

gnulinux996 1y ago

> That would have had more weight if you haven't just described junior developer behavior beforehand. Effectively telling that junior developers "don't have brains" is in very bad taste and offensively wrong. > people would rather die than admit that there's very little practical difference between their own "thinking" and that of an AI chatbot. Would you like to elaborate on this? I was told that McDonalds employees would have been replaced by now, self-driving cars will be driving the streets and new medicines would have been discovered. It's been a couple of years that "AI" is out, and no singularity yet.

ACCount37 1y ago
LLMs use the same type of "abstract thinking" process as humans. Which is why they can struggle with 6-digit multiplication (unlike computer code, very much like humans), but not with parsing out metaphors or describing what love is (unlike computer code, very much like humans). The capability profile of an LLM is amusingly humanlike. Setting the bar for "AI" at "singularity" is a bit like setting requirements for "fusion" at "creating a star more powerful than the Sun". Very good for dismissing all existing fusion research, but not any good for actually understanding fusion. If we had two humans, one with IQ 80 and another with IQ 120, we wouldn't say that one of them isn't "thinking". It's just that one of them is much worse at "thinking" than the other. Which is where a lot of LLMs are currently at. They are, for all intents and purposes, thinking. Are they any good at it though? Depends on what you want from them. Sometimes they're good enough, and sometimes they aren't.
- habinero 1y ago
  > LLMs use the same type of "abstract thinking" process as humans It's surprising you say that, considering we don't actually understand the mechanisms behind how humans think. We do know that human brains are so good at patterns, they'll even see patterns and such that aren't actually there. LLMs are a pile of statistics that can mimic human speech patterns if you don't tax them too hard. Anyone who thinks otherwise is just Clever Hans-ing themselves.
  - ACCount37 1y ago
    We understand the outcomes well enough. LLMs converge onto a similar process by being trained on human-made text. Is LLM reasoning a 1:1 replica of what the human brain does? No, but it does something very similar in function. I see no reason to think that humans are anything more than "a pile of statistics that can mimic human speech patterns if you don't tax them too hard". Humans can get offended when you point it out though. It's too dismissive of their unique human gift of intelligence that a chatbot clearly doesn't have.
    - habinero 1y ago
      > We understand the outcomes well enough We do not, in fact, "understand the outcomes well enough" lol. I don't really care if you want to have an AI waifu or whatever. I'm pointing out that you're vastly underestimating the complexity behind human brains and cognition. And that complex human brain of yours is attributing behaviors to a statistical model that the model does not, in fact, possess.
      - ACCount37 1y ago
        [flagged]
        pferde 1y ago
        > "We don't fully understand how a bird works, and thus: "wind tunnel" is useless, Wright brothers are utter fools, what their crude mechanical contraptions are doing isn't actually flight, and heavier than air flight is obviously unattainable." Completely false equivalency. We did in fact back then completely understand "how a bird works", how the physics of flight work. The problem getting man-made flying vehicles off the ground was mostly about not having good enough materials to build one (plus some economics-related issues). Whereas in case of AI, we are very far from even slightly understanding how our brains work, how the actual thinking happens.
XenophileJKO 1y ago
Living in Silicon Valley, there are MANY self driving cars driving around right now. At the stop light the other day, I was between 3 of them without any humans in them. It is so weird when people pull self driving cars out as some kind of counter example. Just because something doesn't happen on the most optimistic time scale, doesn't mean it isn't happening. They just happen slowly and then all at once.
- jimbo808 1y ago
  15 years ago they said truck drivers would be obsolete in 1-2 years. They are still not obsolete, and they aren't on track to be any time soon, either.

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]