3 ms·

Which fields have they completely transformed? Simultaneously discovering and leveraging the functional nature of language seems like kind of a big deal.

jimbo808 1y ago
Can you explain what this means?
- CamperBob2 1y ago
  Given that we can train a transformer model by shoveling large amounts of inert text at it, and then use it to compose original works and solve original problems with the addition of nothing more than generic computing power, we can conclude that there's nothing special about what the human brain does. All that remains is to come up with a way to integrate short-term experience into long-term memory, and we can call the job of emulating our brains done, at least in principle. Everything after that will amount to detail work.
  - jimbo808 1y ago
    > we can conclude that there's nothing special about what the human brain does ...lol. Yikes. I do not accept your premise. At all. > use it to compose original works and solve original problems Which original works and original problems have LLMs solved, exactly? You might find a random article or stealth marketing paper that claims to have solved some novel problem, but if what you're saying were actually true, we'd be flooded with original works and new problems being solved. So where are all these original works? > All that remains is to come up with a way to integrate short-term experience into long-term memory, and we can call the job of emulating our brains done, at least in principle What experience do you have that caused you to believe these things?
    - CamperBob2 1y ago
      Which is fine, but it's now clear where the burden of proof lies, and IMHO we have transformer-based language models to thank for that. If anyone still insists on hidden magical components ranging from immortal souls to Penrose's quantum woo, well... let's see what you've got.
      - jimbo808 1y ago
        I had edited my comment, I think you replied before I saved it.
        CamperBob2 1y ago
        I was just saying that it's fine if you don't accept my premise, but that doesn't change the reality of the premise. The International Math Olympiad qualifies as solving original problems, for example. If you disagree, that's a case you have to make. Transformer models are unquestionably better at math than I am. They are also better at composition, and will soon be better at programming if they aren't already. Every time a magazine editor is fooled by AI slop, every time an entire subreddit loses the Turing test to somebody's ethically-questionable 'experiment', every time an AI-rendered image wins a contest meant for human artists -- those are original works. Heck, looking at my Spotify playlist, I'd be amazed if I haven't already been fooled by AI-composed music. If it hasn't happened yet, it will probably happen next week, or maybe next year. Certainly within the next five years.
        rhetocj23 1y ago
        [flagged]
        Call_center 1y ago
        [flagged]
        jimbo808 1y ago
        > The International Math Olympiad qualifies as solving original problems, for example. If you disagree, that's a case you have to make. Transformer models are unquestionably better at math than I am. They are also better at composition, and will soon be better at programming if they aren't already. No, it does not. You're just telling me you've never seen what these problems are like. > Every time a magazine editor is fooled by AI slop, every time an entire subreddit loses the Turing test to somebody's ethically-questionable 'experiment', every time an AI-rendered image wins a contest meant for human artists -- those are original works. That's such an absurd logical leap. If you plagiarize a paper and it fools your English teacher, you did not produce an original work. You fooled someone. > Heck, looking at my Spotify playlist, I'd be amazed if I haven't already been fooled by AI-composed music. Who knows, but you've already demonstrated that you're easy to fool, since you've bought all the AI hype and seem to be unwilling to accept that an AI CEO or a politician would lie to you. > If it hasn't happened yet, it will probably happen next week, or maybe next year. Certainly within the next five years. I can pull numbers out of my ass too, watch! 5, 18, 33, 1, 556. Impressed? But jokes aside, guesses about the future are not evidence, especially when they're based on nothing but your own misguided gut feeling.
  - Marshferm 1y ago
    If the brain only uses language like a sportscaster explaining post-hoc what the self and others are doing (experimental evidence 2003, empirical proof 2016), then what's special about brains is entirely separate from what language is or appears to be. It's not even like a ticker tape that records trades, it's like a disengaged, arbitrary set of sequences that have nothing to do with what we're doing (and thinking!). Language is like a disembodied science-fiction narration. Wegener's Illusion of Conscious Will https://www.its.caltech.edu/~squartz/wegner2.pdf https://www.its.caltech.edu/~squartz/wegner2.pdf Fedorenko's Language and Thought are Not The Same Thing https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4874898/ https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4874898/

jimbo808 1y ago

Can you explain what this means?

CamperBob2 1y ago
Given that we can train a transformer model by shoveling large amounts of inert text at it, and then use it to compose original works and solve original problems with the addition of nothing more than generic computing power, we can conclude that there's nothing special about what the human brain does. All that remains is to come up with a way to integrate short-term experience into long-term memory, and we can call the job of emulating our brains done, at least in principle. Everything after that will amount to detail work.
- jimbo808 1y ago
  > we can conclude that there's nothing special about what the human brain does ...lol. Yikes. I do not accept your premise. At all. > use it to compose original works and solve original problems Which original works and original problems have LLMs solved, exactly? You might find a random article or stealth marketing paper that claims to have solved some novel problem, but if what you're saying were actually true, we'd be flooded with original works and new problems being solved. So where are all these original works? > All that remains is to come up with a way to integrate short-term experience into long-term memory, and we can call the job of emulating our brains done, at least in principle What experience do you have that caused you to believe these things?
  - CamperBob2 1y ago
    Which is fine, but it's now clear where the burden of proof lies, and IMHO we have transformer-based language models to thank for that. If anyone still insists on hidden magical components ranging from immortal souls to Penrose's quantum woo, well... let's see what you've got.
    - jimbo808 1y ago
      I had edited my comment, I think you replied before I saved it.
      - CamperBob2 1y ago
        I was just saying that it's fine if you don't accept my premise, but that doesn't change the reality of the premise. The International Math Olympiad qualifies as solving original problems, for example. If you disagree, that's a case you have to make. Transformer models are unquestionably better at math than I am. They are also better at composition, and will soon be better at programming if they aren't already. Every time a magazine editor is fooled by AI slop, every time an entire subreddit loses the Turing test to somebody's ethically-questionable 'experiment', every time an AI-rendered image wins a contest meant for human artists -- those are original works. Heck, looking at my Spotify playlist, I'd be amazed if I haven't already been fooled by AI-composed music. If it hasn't happened yet, it will probably happen next week, or maybe next year. Certainly within the next five years.
        rhetocj23 1y ago
        [flagged]
        Call_center 1y ago
        [flagged]
        jimbo808 1y ago
        > The International Math Olympiad qualifies as solving original problems, for example. If you disagree, that's a case you have to make. Transformer models are unquestionably better at math than I am. They are also better at composition, and will soon be better at programming if they aren't already. No, it does not. You're just telling me you've never seen what these problems are like. > Every time a magazine editor is fooled by AI slop, every time an entire subreddit loses the Turing test to somebody's ethically-questionable 'experiment', every time an AI-rendered image wins a contest meant for human artists -- those are original works. That's such an absurd logical leap. If you plagiarize a paper and it fools your English teacher, you did not produce an original work. You fooled someone. > Heck, looking at my Spotify playlist, I'd be amazed if I haven't already been fooled by AI-composed music. Who knows, but you've already demonstrated that you're easy to fool, since you've bought all the AI hype and seem to be unwilling to accept that an AI CEO or a politician would lie to you. > If it hasn't happened yet, it will probably happen next week, or maybe next year. Certainly within the next five years. I can pull numbers out of my ass too, watch! 5, 18, 33, 1, 556. Impressed? But jokes aside, guesses about the future are not evidence, especially when they're based on nothing but your own misguided gut feeling.
- Marshferm 1y ago
  If the brain only uses language like a sportscaster explaining post-hoc what the self and others are doing (experimental evidence 2003, empirical proof 2016), then what's special about brains is entirely separate from what language is or appears to be. It's not even like a ticker tape that records trades, it's like a disengaged, arbitrary set of sequences that have nothing to do with what we're doing (and thinking!). Language is like a disembodied science-fiction narration. Wegener's Illusion of Conscious Will https://www.its.caltech.edu/~squartz/wegner2.pdf https://www.its.caltech.edu/~squartz/wegner2.pdf Fedorenko's Language and Thought are Not The Same Thing https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4874898/ https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4874898/