4 ms·
And how about the creative rationalizations about how statistical text generation is actual intelligence? As if there is any intent or motive behind the words t
by 0xBA5ED 5mo ago
And how about the creative rationalizations about how statistical text generation is actual intelligence? As if there is any intent or motive behind the words that are generated or the ability to learn literally any new thing after it has been trained on human output?
- resident423 5mo agoSolving open math problems is strong evidence of intelligence so there's not really any need for rationalization? I don't understand why intelligence would require intent or motive? Isn't intent just the behaviour of making a specific thing happen rather than other things?
- x3ro 5mo agoI'm curious, do you think that this also applies to stable diffusion? Are these models "creative" too?
- famouswaffles 5mo agoYeah? Those models are creative.
- resident423 5mo agoI haven't used stable diffusion enough to have a strong opinion on it. But my thinking is LLMs have only recently started contributing novel solutions to problems, so maybe there is some threshold above which there's less sloppy remixing of training data and more ability to form novel insights, and image generators haven't crossed this line yet.
- 0xBA5ED 5mo agoThe LLM did not solve the problem.
- tptacek 5mo ago2022 called, wants this argument back. When you're "statistically generating text" to find zero-day vulnerabilities in hard targets, building Linux kernel modules, assembly-optimizing elliptic curve signature algorithms, and solving arbitrary undergraduate math problems instantaneously --- not to mention apparently solving Erdos problems --- the "statistical text" stuff has stopped being a useful description of what's happening, something closer to "it's made of atoms and obeys the laws of thermodynamics" than it is to "a real boundary condition of what it can accomplish". I don't doubt that there are many very real and meaningful limitations of these systems that deserve to be called out. But "text generation" isn't doing that work.
- emp17344 5mo agoBut the systems that do that impressive work are no longer just LLMs. Look at the Claude Code leak - it’s a sprawling, redundant maze relying on tools and tests to approximate useful output. The actual LLM is a small portion of the total system. It’s a useful tool, but it’s obviously not truly intelligent - it was hacked together using the near-trillions of dollars AI labs have received for this explicit purpose.
- tptacek 5mo agoWhat does this matter? You can build a working coding agent for yourself extremely quickly; it's remarkably straightforward to do (more people should). But look underneath all the "sprawling tools": the LLM itself is a sprawling maze of matrices. It's all sprawling, it's all crazy, and it's insane what they're capable of doing. Again if you want to say they're limited in some way, I'm all ears, I'm sure they are. But none of that has anything to do with "statistical text generation". Apparently, a huge chunk of all knowledge work is "statistical text generation". I choose to draw from that the conclusion that the "text generation" part of this is not interesting.
- emp17344 5mo agoWell, hang on a second - it sounds like you may actually disagree with the user who created this thread. That user claims that these systems exhibit “real intelligence”, and success on this Erdos problem is proof. You seem to be making the claim that LLMs are statistical text generators, but statistical text generation is good enough to succeed in certain cases. Those are different arguments. What do you actually believe? Are we even in disagreement?