4 ms·

That's where these threads always end up. Someone asserts, almost violently, that AI does not and/or cannot "think." When asked how to falsify their assertion

That's where these threads always end up. Someone asserts, almost violently, that AI does not and/or cannot "think." When asked how to falsify their assertion, perhaps by explaining what exactly is unique about the human brain that cannot and/or will not be possible to emulate, that's the last anyone ever hears from them. At least until the next "AI can't think" story gets posted. The same arguments that appeared in 2015 inevitably get trotted out, almost verbatim, ten years later. It would be amusing on other sites, but it's just pathetic here.

Terr_ 11mo ago
Someone asserts, almost religiously, that LLMs do and/or can "think." When asked how to falsify their assertion, perhaps by explaining what exactly is "thinking" in the human brain that can and/or will be possible to emulate...
- CamperBob2 11mo ago
  When asked how to falsify their assertion, perhaps by explaining what exactly is "thinking" in the human brain that can and/or will be possible to emulate... ... someone else points out that the same models that can't "think" are somehow turning in gold-level performance at international math and programming competitions, making Fields Medalists sit up and take notice, winning art competitions, composing music indistinguishable from human output, and making entire subreddits fail the Turing test.
  - Terr_ 11mo ago
    A couple decades of chess programs nods knowingly: "First time?"
    - CamperBob2 11mo ago
      A couple decades of chess programs nods knowingly: "First time?" Uh huh. Good luck getting Stockfish to do your math homework while Leela works on your next waifu. LLMs play chess poorly. Chess engines do nothing else at all. That's kind of a big difference, wouldn't you say?
      - ben_w 11mo ago
        > That's kind of a big difference, wouldn't you say? To their utility. Not sure if it matters on the question "thinking?"; even if for the debaters "thinking" requires consciousness/qualia (and that varies), there's nothing more than guesses as to where that emerges from.
      - gowld 11mo ago
        Terr_ was agreeing with you and highlighting how old the debate is.
        Terr_ 11mo ago
        Highlighting, yes, agreeing, no. For my original earlier reply, the main subtext would be: "Your complaint is ridiculously biased." For the later reply about chess, perhaps: "You're asserting that tricking, amazing, or beating a human is a reliable sign of human-like intelligence. We already know that is untrue from decades of past experience."
        CamperBob2 11mo ago
        You're asserting that tricking, amazing, or beating a human is a reliable sign of human-like intelligence. I don't know who's asserting that (other than Alan Turing, I guess); certainly not me. Humans are, if anything, easier to fool than our current crude AI models are. Heck, ELIZA was enough to fool non-specialist humans. In any case, nobody was "tricked" at the IMO. What happened there required legitimate reasoning abilities. The burden of proof falls decisively on those who assert otherwise.
  - nh23423fefe 11mo ago
    god of the gaps
    - CamperBob2 11mo ago
      Exactly. As soon as a model does something it "wasn't supposed to be able to do," two gaps open up on either side.
  - nutjob2 11mo ago
    Computers can perform math and numerous other tasks billions of times faster than humans, whats your point? This is exactly the problem. Claims about AI are unfalsifiable, thus your various non-sequiturs about AI 'thinking'.
- School-Cotton 11mo ago
  Err, no, that’s not what’s happening. Nobody, at least in this thread (and most others like it I’ve seen), is confidently claiming LLMs can think. There are people confidently claiming they can’t and then other people expressing skepticism at their confidence and/or trying to get them to nail down what they mean.
  - jayveeone 11mo ago
    This entire debate over the years is because so many confidently assert that AI can think, or that AI will soon be our God, or our ruler, etc.
- gfdvgfffv 11mo ago
  One mostly sees people aggressively claiming they can’t, ever. On the other side people seem to simply allow that they might, or might eventually.
- superkuh 11mo ago
  Or they just point to the turing test which was the defacto standard test for something so nebulous. And behold: LLM can pass the turing test. So they think. Can you come up with something better (than the turing test)?
  - deleted 11mo ago
    [deleted]
  - bigfishrunning 11mo ago
    But the Turing test (which I concede, LLMs do pass) doesn't test if some system is thinking; it tests if the system can convince an unbiased observer that it is thinking. I cannot come up with a better "is this thing thinking" test, but that doesn't mean that such a test can't exist; I'm sure there are much smarter people then me trying to solve this problem.
ablob 11mo ago
Usually it is the work of the one claiming something to prove it. So if you believe that AI does "think" you are expected to show me that it really does. Claiming it "thinks - prove otherwise" is just bad form and also opens the discussion up for moving the goalposts just as you did with your brain emulation statement. Or you could just not accept any argument made or circumvent it by stating the one trying to disprove your assertion got the definition wrong. There are countless ways to start a bad faith argument using this methodology, hence: Define property -> prove property. Conversely, if the one asserting something doesn't want to define it there is no useful conversation to be had. (as in: AI doesn't think - I won't tell you what I mean by think) PS: Asking someone to falsify their own assertion doesn't seem a good strategy here. PPS: Even if everything about the human brain can be emulated, that does not constitute progress for your argument, since now you'd have to assert that AI emulates the human brain perfectly before it is complete. There is no direct connection between "This AI does not think" to "The human brain can be fully emulated". Also the difference between "does not" and "can not" is big enough here that mangling them together is inappropriate.
- Tadpole9181 11mo ago
  Then prove to me you are thinking, lest we assume you are a philosophical zombie and need no rights or protections. Sometimes, because of the consequences of otherwise, the order gets reversed
  - ablob 11mo ago
    Well first of all I never claimed that I was capable of thinking (smirk). We also haven't agreed on a definition of "thinking" yet, so as you can read in my previous comment, there is no meaningful conversation to be had. I also don't understand how your oddly aggresive phrasing adds to the conversation, but if it helps you: my rights and protections do not depend on whether I'm able to prove to you that I am thinking. (It also derails the conversation for what it's worth - it's a good strategy in the debating club, but these are about winning or loosing and not about fostering and obtaining knowledge) Whatever you meant to say with "Sometimes, because of the consequences of otherwise, the order gets reversed" eludes me as well.
pegasus 11mo ago
Consider that you might have become polarized yourself. I often encounter good arguments against current AI systems emulating all essential aspects of human thinking. For example, the fact that they can't learn from few examples, that they can't perform simple mathematical operations without access to external help (via tool calling) or that they have to expend so much more energy to do their magic (and yes, to me they are a bit magical), which makes some wonder if what these models do is a form of refined brute-force search, rather than ideating. Personally, I'm ok with reusing the word "thinking", but there are dogmatic stances on both sides. For example, lots of people decreeing that biology in the end can't but reduce to maths, since "what else could it be". The truth is we don't actually know if it is possible, for any conceivable computational system, to emulate all essential aspects of human thought. There are good arguments for this (in)possibility, like those presented by Roger Penrose in "the Emperor's new Mind" and "Shadows of the Mind".
- CamperBob2 11mo ago
  For example, the fact that they can't learn from few examples For one thing, yes, they can, obviously [1] -- when's the last time you checked? -- and for another, there are plenty of humans who seemingly cannot. The only real difference is that with an LLM, when the context is lost, so is the learning. That will obviously need to be addressed at some point. that they can't perform simple mathematical operations without access to external help (via tool calling) But yet you are fine with humans requiring a calculator to perform similar tasks? Many humans are worse at basic arithmetic than an unaided transformer network. And, tellingly, we make the same kinds of errors. or that they have to expend so much more energy to do their magic (and yes, to me they are a bit magical), which makes some wonder if what these models do is a form of refined brute-force search, rather than ideating. Well, of course, all they are doing is searching and curve-fitting. To me, the magical thing is that they have shown us, more or less undeniably (Penrose notwithstanding), that that is all we do. Questions that have been asked for thousands of years have now been answered: there's nothing special about the human brain, except for the ability to form, consolidate, consult, and revise long-term memories. 1: E.g., https://arxiv.org/abs/2005.14165 https://arxiv.org/abs/2005.14165 from 2020

Terr_ 11mo ago

Someone asserts, almost religiously, that LLMs do and/or can "think." When asked how to falsify their assertion, perhaps by explaining what exactly is "thinking" in the human brain that can and/or will be possible to emulate...

CamperBob2 11mo ago
When asked how to falsify their assertion, perhaps by explaining what exactly is "thinking" in the human brain that can and/or will be possible to emulate... ... someone else points out that the same models that can't "think" are somehow turning in gold-level performance at international math and programming competitions, making Fields Medalists sit up and take notice, winning art competitions, composing music indistinguishable from human output, and making entire subreddits fail the Turing test.
- Terr_ 11mo ago
  A couple decades of chess programs nods knowingly: "First time?"
  - CamperBob2 11mo ago
    A couple decades of chess programs nods knowingly: "First time?" Uh huh. Good luck getting Stockfish to do your math homework while Leela works on your next waifu. LLMs play chess poorly. Chess engines do nothing else at all. That's kind of a big difference, wouldn't you say?
    - ben_w 11mo ago
      > That's kind of a big difference, wouldn't you say? To their utility. Not sure if it matters on the question "thinking?"; even if for the debaters "thinking" requires consciousness/qualia (and that varies), there's nothing more than guesses as to where that emerges from.
    - gowld 11mo ago
      Terr_ was agreeing with you and highlighting how old the debate is.
      - Terr_ 11mo ago
        Highlighting, yes, agreeing, no. For my original earlier reply, the main subtext would be: "Your complaint is ridiculously biased." For the later reply about chess, perhaps: "You're asserting that tricking, amazing, or beating a human is a reliable sign of human-like intelligence. We already know that is untrue from decades of past experience."
        CamperBob2 11mo ago
        You're asserting that tricking, amazing, or beating a human is a reliable sign of human-like intelligence. I don't know who's asserting that (other than Alan Turing, I guess); certainly not me. Humans are, if anything, easier to fool than our current crude AI models are. Heck, ELIZA was enough to fool non-specialist humans. In any case, nobody was "tricked" at the IMO. What happened there required legitimate reasoning abilities. The burden of proof falls decisively on those who assert otherwise.
- nh23423fefe 11mo ago
  god of the gaps
  - CamperBob2 11mo ago
    Exactly. As soon as a model does something it "wasn't supposed to be able to do," two gaps open up on either side.
- nutjob2 11mo ago
  Computers can perform math and numerous other tasks billions of times faster than humans, whats your point? This is exactly the problem. Claims about AI are unfalsifiable, thus your various non-sequiturs about AI 'thinking'.
School-Cotton 11mo ago
Err, no, that’s not what’s happening. Nobody, at least in this thread (and most others like it I’ve seen), is confidently claiming LLMs can think. There are people confidently claiming they can’t and then other people expressing skepticism at their confidence and/or trying to get them to nail down what they mean.
- jayveeone 11mo ago
  This entire debate over the years is because so many confidently assert that AI can think, or that AI will soon be our God, or our ruler, etc.
gfdvgfffv 11mo ago
One mostly sees people aggressively claiming they can’t, ever. On the other side people seem to simply allow that they might, or might eventually.
superkuh 11mo ago
Or they just point to the turing test which was the defacto standard test for something so nebulous. And behold: LLM can pass the turing test. So they think. Can you come up with something better (than the turing test)?
- deleted 11mo ago
  [deleted]
- bigfishrunning 11mo ago
  But the Turing test (which I concede, LLMs do pass) doesn't test if some system is thinking; it tests if the system can convince an unbiased observer that it is thinking. I cannot come up with a better "is this thing thinking" test, but that doesn't mean that such a test can't exist; I'm sure there are much smarter people then me trying to solve this problem.

ablob 11mo ago

Usually it is the work of the one claiming something to prove it. So if you believe that AI does "think" you are expected to show me that it really does. Claiming it "thinks - prove otherwise" is just bad form and also opens the discussion up for moving the goalposts just as you did with your brain emulation statement. Or you could just not accept any argument made or circumvent it by stating the one trying to disprove your assertion got the definition wrong. There are countless ways to start a bad faith argument using this methodology, hence: Define property -> prove property. Conversely, if the one asserting something doesn't want to define it there is no useful conversation to be had. (as in: AI doesn't think - I won't tell you what I mean by think) PS: Asking someone to falsify their own assertion doesn't seem a good strategy here. PPS: Even if everything about the human brain can be emulated, that does not constitute progress for your argument, since now you'd have to assert that AI emulates the human brain perfectly before it is complete. There is no direct connection between "This AI does not think" to "The human brain can be fully emulated". Also the difference between "does not" and "can not" is big enough here that mangling them together is inappropriate.

Tadpole9181 11mo ago
Then prove to me you are thinking, lest we assume you are a philosophical zombie and need no rights or protections. Sometimes, because of the consequences of otherwise, the order gets reversed
- ablob 11mo ago
  Well first of all I never claimed that I was capable of thinking (smirk). We also haven't agreed on a definition of "thinking" yet, so as you can read in my previous comment, there is no meaningful conversation to be had. I also don't understand how your oddly aggresive phrasing adds to the conversation, but if it helps you: my rights and protections do not depend on whether I'm able to prove to you that I am thinking. (It also derails the conversation for what it's worth - it's a good strategy in the debating club, but these are about winning or loosing and not about fostering and obtaining knowledge) Whatever you meant to say with "Sometimes, because of the consequences of otherwise, the order gets reversed" eludes me as well.

pegasus 11mo ago

Consider that you might have become polarized yourself. I often encounter good arguments against current AI systems emulating all essential aspects of human thinking. For example, the fact that they can't learn from few examples, that they can't perform simple mathematical operations without access to external help (via tool calling) or that they have to expend so much more energy to do their magic (and yes, to me they are a bit magical), which makes some wonder if what these models do is a form of refined brute-force search, rather than ideating. Personally, I'm ok with reusing the word "thinking", but there are dogmatic stances on both sides. For example, lots of people decreeing that biology in the end can't but reduce to maths, since "what else could it be". The truth is we don't actually know if it is possible, for any conceivable computational system, to emulate all essential aspects of human thought. There are good arguments for this (in)possibility, like those presented by Roger Penrose in "the Emperor's new Mind" and "Shadows of the Mind".

CamperBob2 11mo ago
For example, the fact that they can't learn from few examples For one thing, yes, they can, obviously [1] -- when's the last time you checked? -- and for another, there are plenty of humans who seemingly cannot. The only real difference is that with an LLM, when the context is lost, so is the learning. That will obviously need to be addressed at some point. that they can't perform simple mathematical operations without access to external help (via tool calling) But yet you are fine with humans requiring a calculator to perform similar tasks? Many humans are worse at basic arithmetic than an unaided transformer network. And, tellingly, we make the same kinds of errors. or that they have to expend so much more energy to do their magic (and yes, to me they are a bit magical), which makes some wonder if what these models do is a form of refined brute-force search, rather than ideating. Well, of course, all they are doing is searching and curve-fitting. To me, the magical thing is that they have shown us, more or less undeniably (Penrose notwithstanding), that that is all we do. Questions that have been asked for thousands of years have now been answered: there's nothing special about the human brain, except for the ability to form, consolidate, consult, and revise long-term memories. 1: E.g., https://arxiv.org/abs/2005.14165 https://arxiv.org/abs/2005.14165 from 2020