3 ms·

These machines do not think and they do not have a mind. We may build such a thing in the future but these do not possess those qualities. It seems as if the

These machines do not think and they do not have a mind. We may build such a thing in the future but these do not possess those qualities. It seems as if the majority of people do not understand this, which is why the public is so confused about why they produce output like they do.

whstl 4mo ago
I don't see how this has anything to do with my answer, but ok?
- operatingthetan 4mo ago
  An explanation for your story.
  - whstl 4mo ago
    I never said otherwise? The point of the article stands: if providing more info than the model can access causes it to turn argumentative and refuse to comply, then it's a worse performance and a waste of money.
    - operatingthetan 4mo ago
      You seem to be suggesting I'm saying something that I don't believe I am, this is obviously not working. Hope your day goes well.
      - deleted 4mo ago
        [deleted]
      - whstl 4mo ago
        We can agree that it's not working! :D
stingraycharles 4mo ago
The comment you’re replying to never implied that they think or have a mind. They merely stated that they respond in a dismissive way and not following instructions. Basically the complaint is about how Claude is being trained.
- deleted 4mo ago
  [deleted]
coldtea 4mo ago
>These machines do not think and they do not have a mind Well, they do think, in that they produce output that is indistinguisable from thinking. If a person produced the same output to the same questions, we'd considered them thinking, maybe dumb sometimes, or paranoid at others, but still a thinking person. We can argue about the quality and depth of the thinking that LLMs do (and we can say it's much cruder than a human thinking architecture, and of course not real time), but an LLM quacks like a thinking duck and looks like a thinking duck.
- operatingthetan 4mo ago
  Indistinguishable output does not mean thinking occurred. It simply means you have the appearance of thinking. I believe thinking requires agency, which the LLM does not possess. As in, it has zero stakes. It does not receive dopamine as a result for a good answer, and a split second after finishing your answer the very same GPU is probably translated french or something for someone in another state. This is a language generator which has a corpus of information and has been tuned to appear correct.
  - coldtea 4mo ago
    >Indistinguishable output does not mean thinking occurred. It does for all intents and purposes. The rest is semantics and metaphysics. That how we know another person is thinking too. By their output. We don't put a debugger into their brain.
    - operatingthetan 4mo ago
      What then is your LLM "thinking" about between answers? The answer is nothing. Your definition of thinking does not match the one humans normally use. >That how we know another person is thinking too. By their output. We don't put a debugger into their brain. We know thoughts exist in their brain between the ones they choose to verbalize. Avoiding the distraction of solipsism. For the LLM the "thinking" phase is just a preamble output for creating the answer. It just gets appended to the context window. Remove the context windows from your models and you will see how much of a mind they truly have. None.
blooalien 4mo ago
> "These machines do not think and they do not have a mind." You're so totally 1000% right about that, but they're really good at faking it, to such a degree that entirely too many people (even including some so-called "experts" in the field) have been utterly fooled by the mathematical "trickery" that performs the illusion of "intelligence".

whstl 4mo ago

I don't see how this has anything to do with my answer, but ok?

operatingthetan 4mo ago
An explanation for your story.
- whstl 4mo ago
  I never said otherwise? The point of the article stands: if providing more info than the model can access causes it to turn argumentative and refuse to comply, then it's a worse performance and a waste of money.
  - operatingthetan 4mo ago
    You seem to be suggesting I'm saying something that I don't believe I am, this is obviously not working. Hope your day goes well.
    - deleted 4mo ago
      [deleted]
    - whstl 4mo ago
      We can agree that it's not working! :D

stingraycharles 4mo ago

The comment you’re replying to never implied that they think or have a mind. They merely stated that they respond in a dismissive way and not following instructions. Basically the complaint is about how Claude is being trained.

deleted 4mo ago
[deleted]

coldtea 4mo ago

>These machines do not think and they do not have a mind Well, they do think, in that they produce output that is indistinguisable from thinking. If a person produced the same output to the same questions, we'd considered them thinking, maybe dumb sometimes, or paranoid at others, but still a thinking person. We can argue about the quality and depth of the thinking that LLMs do (and we can say it's much cruder than a human thinking architecture, and of course not real time), but an LLM quacks like a thinking duck and looks like a thinking duck.

operatingthetan 4mo ago
Indistinguishable output does not mean thinking occurred. It simply means you have the appearance of thinking. I believe thinking requires agency, which the LLM does not possess. As in, it has zero stakes. It does not receive dopamine as a result for a good answer, and a split second after finishing your answer the very same GPU is probably translated french or something for someone in another state. This is a language generator which has a corpus of information and has been tuned to appear correct.
- coldtea 4mo ago
  >Indistinguishable output does not mean thinking occurred. It does for all intents and purposes. The rest is semantics and metaphysics. That how we know another person is thinking too. By their output. We don't put a debugger into their brain.
  - operatingthetan 4mo ago
    What then is your LLM "thinking" about between answers? The answer is nothing. Your definition of thinking does not match the one humans normally use. >That how we know another person is thinking too. By their output. We don't put a debugger into their brain. We know thoughts exist in their brain between the ones they choose to verbalize. Avoiding the distraction of solipsism. For the LLM the "thinking" phase is just a preamble output for creating the answer. It just gets appended to the context window. Remove the context windows from your models and you will see how much of a mind they truly have. None.

blooalien 4mo ago

> "These machines do not think and they do not have a mind." You're so totally 1000% right about that, but they're really good at faking it, to such a degree that entirely too many people (even including some so-called "experts" in the field) have been utterly fooled by the mathematical "trickery" that performs the illusion of "intelligence".