4 ms·

What makes you think you're anything more than a 'text autocompleter'? You are justing auto completing someone's comment

• altmanaltman 5mo ago
  If you seriously cannot tell what is the difference between a human being and a LLM and think they are both "autocompleters", you know very little about both humans and LLMs.
  • stx5 5mo ago
    with all my ears
  • jpadkins 5mo ago
    I cannot. Please explain the difference to me. Everything I've read about neuroscience is basically the brain is a signal prediction machine. The harness, signals and incentive (hormone) systems may be different, but predicting the future is basic building blocks of intelligence.
    • ai_fry_ur_brain 5mo ago
      How much karma do you have on reddit, probably millions. Only redditors with Dunning-Kruger would say something like this. I reccomend the podcast Machine Learning Street Talk, you'll find plenty of machine learning PhDs who are also neuroscientists that are completely mystified by the brain, how it works and what intelligence is. The people at the forefront of nueroscience definately aren't reducing human intelligence and experience to "signal processing", or whatever you think it is.
      • jpadkins 5mo ago
        I mostly stopped using Reddit in 2016, and was site banned in 2019 (for posting "gnews.com" in answer to the question of which site has the Biden laptop leak). I didn't say "signal processing", I stated 'signal prediction machine'. This is not my idea, I would say my more source is the book On Intelligence, written by neuroscientists https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_Intelligence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_Intelligence but this idea is hundreds of thousands of years old. Prediction as intelligence is hardly a fringe topic https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13164-021-00538-5 https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13164-021-00538-5 Try to not be insulting when you post here, this is not reddit.
• IAmGraydon 5mo ago
  This thought that “maybe we are just next token predictors too” is not particularly clever. Most of us have thought about that, but a bit of experience with LLMs make it obvious that’s not what’s going on here. I think it’s a bit like listening to a recording of a person and swearing there’s an actual person in the recording device because the audible output is indistinguishable from the real thing. Why would you do that? You wouldn’t unless you have no idea how a recording device works, in which case it seems like magic.
  • Domenic_S 5mo ago
    > a bit of experience with LLMs make it obvious that’s not what’s going on here I feel like that overstates the point quite a bit. There's a lot that's similar: neurotransmitter release is stochastic at the vesicle level, ion channels open and close probabilistically, post-synaptic responses have noise. A given neuron receiving identical input twice doesn't produce identical output. Neither brains nor LLMs have a central decider that forms intent and then implements it. In both, decisions emerges from network dynamics, they're a description of what the system did, not a separate cause (see Libet's experiments). Now pretty clearly there's a lot that's different, and of course we don't understand brains enough to say just how similar they are to LLMs, but that's the point: it's an interesting thought experiment and shutting it down with a virtual eyeroll is sad.
  • stx5 5mo ago
    Thank you for you completion
  • akoboldfrying 5mo ago
    A one-way audio channel is indeed too weak for a person to distinguish a person from a recording, but a bidirectional audio channel is easily strong enough: the person can verbally ask the person-or-recording a question and see if it is acknowledged. I claim that a modern frontier LLM can be given simple instructions that make it impossible for a person to reliably distinguish it from a person over a bidirectional text-only medium.
    • IAmGraydon 5mo ago