4 ms·

This feels too strong IMO. Just focusing on the outputs we can observe, LLMs clearly seem to be able to "think" correctly on some small problems that feel gene

by alecbz 8mo ago

This feels too strong IMO. Just focusing on the outputs we can observe, LLMs clearly seem to be able to "think" correctly on some small problems that feel generalized from examples its been trained on (as opposed to pure regurgitation). Objecting to this on some kind of philosophical grounds of "being able to generalize from existing patterns isn't the same as thinking" feels like a distinction without a difference. If LLMs were better at solving complex problems I would absolutely describe what they're doing as "thinking". They just aren't, in practice.

chrisjj 8mo ago
> Just focusing on the outputs we can observe, LLMs clearly seem to be able to "think" correctly on some small problems that feel generalized from examples its been trained on (as opposed to pure regurgitation). "Seem". "Feel". That's the anthropomorphisation at work again. These chatbots are called Large Language Models for a reason. Language is mere text, not thought. If their sellers could get away with calling them Large Thought Models, they would. They can't, because these chatbots do not think.
- alecbz 8mo ago
  > "Seem". "Feel". That's the anthropomorphisation at work again. Those are descriptions of my thoughts. So no, not anthropomorphisation, unless you think I'm a bot. > These chatbots are called Large Language Models for a reason. Language is mere text, not thought. If their sellers could get away with calling them Large Thought Models, they would. They can't, because these chatbots do not think. They use the term "thinking" all the time. ---- I'm more than willing to listen to an argument that what LLMs are doing should not be considered thought, but "it doesn't have 'thought' in the name" ain't it.
  - chrisjj 8mo ago
    > Those are descriptions of my thoughts. So no, not anthropomorphisation The result of anthromorphisation. When we treat a machine as a machine, we less need to understand it by seems and feel. > They use the term "thinking" all the time. I find not. E.g. ChatGPT: Short answer? Not like you do. Longer, honest version: I don’t think in the human sense—no consciousness, no inner voice, no feelings, no awareness. I don’t wake up with ideas or sit there wondering about stuff. What I do have is the ability to recognize patterns in language and use them to generate responses that look like thinking.
    - jama211 8mo ago
      This thread is the most pathetic internet argument I’ve read in quite a while. Look at yourselves, both of you.
  - deleted 8mo ago
    [deleted]

by alecbz 8mo ago

chrisjj 8mo ago

> Just focusing on the outputs we can observe, LLMs clearly seem to be able to "think" correctly on some small problems that feel generalized from examples its been trained on (as opposed to pure regurgitation). "Seem". "Feel". That's the anthropomorphisation at work again. These chatbots are called Large Language Models for a reason. Language is mere text, not thought. If their sellers could get away with calling them Large Thought Models, they would. They can't, because these chatbots do not think.

alecbz 8mo ago
> "Seem". "Feel". That's the anthropomorphisation at work again. Those are descriptions of my thoughts. So no, not anthropomorphisation, unless you think I'm a bot. > These chatbots are called Large Language Models for a reason. Language is mere text, not thought. If their sellers could get away with calling them Large Thought Models, they would. They can't, because these chatbots do not think. They use the term "thinking" all the time. ---- I'm more than willing to listen to an argument that what LLMs are doing should not be considered thought, but "it doesn't have 'thought' in the name" ain't it.
- chrisjj 8mo ago
  > Those are descriptions of my thoughts. So no, not anthropomorphisation The result of anthromorphisation. When we treat a machine as a machine, we less need to understand it by seems and feel. > They use the term "thinking" all the time. I find not. E.g. ChatGPT: Short answer? Not like you do. Longer, honest version: I don’t think in the human sense—no consciousness, no inner voice, no feelings, no awareness. I don’t wake up with ideas or sit there wondering about stuff. What I do have is the ability to recognize patterns in language and use them to generate responses that look like thinking.
  - jama211 8mo ago
    This thread is the most pathetic internet argument I’ve read in quite a while. Look at yourselves, both of you.
- deleted 8mo ago
  [deleted]