3 ms·
>The problem with all this is that we don't actually know what human cognition is doing either. We do know what it's not doing, and that is operating only thro
by viccis 9mo ago
>The problem with all this is that we don't actually know what human cognition is doing either.
We do know what it's not doing, and that is operating only through reproducing linguistic patterns. There's no more cause to think LLMs approximate our thought (thought being something they are incapable of) than that Naive-Bayes spam filter models approximate our thought.
- PaulDavisThe1st 9mo agoMy point is that we know very little about the sort of "thought" that we are capable of either. I agree that LLMs cannot do what we typical refer to as "thought", but I thnk it is possible that we do a LOT less of that than we think when we are "thinking" (or more precisely, having the experience of thinking).
- viccis 9mo agoHow does this worldview reconcile the fact that thought demonstrably exists independent of either language or vision/audio sense?
- PaulDavisThe1st 9mo agoI don't see a need to reconcile them.
- viccis 9mo agoWhich is why it's incoherent!
- PaulDavisThe1st 9mo agoI'm not clear that it has to be coherent at this point in the history of our understanding of cognition. We barely know what we're even talking about most of the time ...