3 ms·

Why not? I think there’s fairly strong evidence that there is something that convincingly looks like reasoning. I think anthropic has done some nice circuit tra

Why not? I think there’s fairly strong evidence that there is something that convincingly looks like reasoning. I think anthropic has done some nice circuit tracing and mechanistic interpretability work on this for instance.

chrisjj 3mo ago
> there is something that convincingly looks like reasoning Convincing ... people who believe chatbots are intelligent? Well sure.
- astro1234 3mo ago
  I don’t mean to say you are wrong, I just mean to ask what criteria you would consider necessary to satisfy in order for you to consider a system to be reasoning.
Planktonne 3mo ago
> I think there’s fairly strong evidence that there is something that convincingly looks like reasoning. No one is disputing that, but there is an enormous difference between evidence of 'something that looks like a thing' and evidence of the thing itself.
- astro1234 3mo ago
  I tend to agree but to adjudicate that someone has to define what they consider reasoning to be.
  - Planktonne 3mo ago
    Crucially it's the responsibility of those who are making the claim here to bring evidence and definitions. The other approach, very popular on HN, has led to endless carping by people making outlandish claims without evidence and then demanding that every term possible be defined before they can be dismissed out of hand. The claim that any two things are equivalent just because they look similar is a strong one, and the onus is on the person advancing it to bring evidence, not to insist that they are considered correct until it is disproved. That's how it works with the flat earth and religion and everything else; we shouldn't accept an unsupported conclusion just because some people really, really like AI and don't want to have to justify their claims. The traditional response to such claims is ridicule [1]; we know trivially from all sorts of examples that presentation is not identity, and so 'but it looks similar' is not a convincing stance. 1 https://sites.psu.edu/sierraastle/2019/10/21/behold-a-man/ https://sites.psu.edu/sierraastle/2019/10/21/behold-a-man/
    - rlt 3mo ago
      > Crucially it's the responsibility of those who are making the claim here to bring evidence and definitions Ok, I claim that if something draws reasonable conclusions to questions it hasn't previously seen by performing steps that look like reasoning, then it is reasoning. If you disagree then please define reasoning.
      - Planktonne 3mo ago
        This is actually a perfect example of what I was referring to in my earlier comment; the strident [1] and rather aggressive insistence that your unsupported belief be proved wrong, rather than you providing literally any evidence that two distinct things are identical other than the assertion itself. You're making a strong claim here; the burden of proof [2] lies with you, in much the same way that it would if you declared that horoscopes know the future. We have a sufficient explanation for LLM behaviour that we have no reason to discard based solely on your whim; if you want to be convincing, then you'll need more than assertion. Similar appearance does not mean identical nature, and your position does not warrant serious consideration until you provide support for it. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sealioning https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sealioning [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(philosophy) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(philosophy)
        rlt 3mo ago
        I provided my definition and argument. I can't engage further if you don't refute any of it.
        Planktonne 3mo ago
        You didn't provide either; you made a claim--in your own words--and nothing more. There's nothing to refute [1]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitchens%27s_razor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitchens%27s_razor
        buzzin__ 3mo ago
        It's simply amazing how you can be so confidently wrong. You got a perfectly reasonable response, clear, short. Yet, you chose to ignore it and attack the guy by claiming that the fact that LLMs give a reasonable response are his "beliefs", and "unsupported" at that. LoL. Is you claim that LLMs don't give a reasonable answers? Did you try to ask them some complex questions in the last 12 months? Or is your line of reasoning more in the line of "they heard all the questions before, and just memorized the answers?" Or, do you not agree with a statement that giving reasonable answers is reasoning?
  - encyclopedism 3mo ago
    What is 'reasoning' or IQ or more importantly consciousness are very difficult open questions in science. An approach that might shed some light is instead to define what consciousness ISN'T or what thinking ISN'T. Naively let us say consciousness is NOT a large list of weights (i.e. an LLM). The uncanny emergent ability of an LLM depends entirely on training data. A mathematical model is used to match output against training data (via loss functions etc). The training data contains all the human ingenuity, logic, rational, patterns and features. Try giving an LLM model the alphabet ALONE and see what it comes up with? Why are you able to immediately reason that given the alphabet alone it could not 'reason', 'think' or produce much of anything useful. To address briefly the idea of reasoning and something assembling reasoning somehow implying the same thing. Try the following thought experiment. Given a simulated world (e.g. The Matrix), no matter how good the simulation you would not actually get WET.

chrisjj 3mo ago

> there is something that convincingly looks like reasoning Convincing ... people who believe chatbots are intelligent? Well sure.

astro1234 3mo ago
I don’t mean to say you are wrong, I just mean to ask what criteria you would consider necessary to satisfy in order for you to consider a system to be reasoning.

Planktonne 3mo ago

> I think there’s fairly strong evidence that there is something that convincingly looks like reasoning. No one is disputing that, but there is an enormous difference between evidence of 'something that looks like a thing' and evidence of the thing itself.

astro1234 3mo ago
I tend to agree but to adjudicate that someone has to define what they consider reasoning to be.
- Planktonne 3mo ago
  Crucially it's the responsibility of those who are making the claim here to bring evidence and definitions. The other approach, very popular on HN, has led to endless carping by people making outlandish claims without evidence and then demanding that every term possible be defined before they can be dismissed out of hand. The claim that any two things are equivalent just because they look similar is a strong one, and the onus is on the person advancing it to bring evidence, not to insist that they are considered correct until it is disproved. That's how it works with the flat earth and religion and everything else; we shouldn't accept an unsupported conclusion just because some people really, really like AI and don't want to have to justify their claims. The traditional response to such claims is ridicule [1]; we know trivially from all sorts of examples that presentation is not identity, and so 'but it looks similar' is not a convincing stance. 1 https://sites.psu.edu/sierraastle/2019/10/21/behold-a-man/ https://sites.psu.edu/sierraastle/2019/10/21/behold-a-man/
  - rlt 3mo ago
    > Crucially it's the responsibility of those who are making the claim here to bring evidence and definitions Ok, I claim that if something draws reasonable conclusions to questions it hasn't previously seen by performing steps that look like reasoning, then it is reasoning. If you disagree then please define reasoning.
    - Planktonne 3mo ago
      This is actually a perfect example of what I was referring to in my earlier comment; the strident [1] and rather aggressive insistence that your unsupported belief be proved wrong, rather than you providing literally any evidence that two distinct things are identical other than the assertion itself. You're making a strong claim here; the burden of proof [2] lies with you, in much the same way that it would if you declared that horoscopes know the future. We have a sufficient explanation for LLM behaviour that we have no reason to discard based solely on your whim; if you want to be convincing, then you'll need more than assertion. Similar appearance does not mean identical nature, and your position does not warrant serious consideration until you provide support for it. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sealioning https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sealioning [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(philosophy) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(philosophy)
      - rlt 3mo ago
        I provided my definition and argument. I can't engage further if you don't refute any of it.
        Planktonne 3mo ago
        You didn't provide either; you made a claim--in your own words--and nothing more. There's nothing to refute [1]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitchens%27s_razor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitchens%27s_razor
      - buzzin__ 3mo ago
        It's simply amazing how you can be so confidently wrong. You got a perfectly reasonable response, clear, short. Yet, you chose to ignore it and attack the guy by claiming that the fact that LLMs give a reasonable response are his "beliefs", and "unsupported" at that. LoL. Is you claim that LLMs don't give a reasonable answers? Did you try to ask them some complex questions in the last 12 months? Or is your line of reasoning more in the line of "they heard all the questions before, and just memorized the answers?" Or, do you not agree with a statement that giving reasonable answers is reasoning?
- encyclopedism 3mo ago
  What is 'reasoning' or IQ or more importantly consciousness are very difficult open questions in science. An approach that might shed some light is instead to define what consciousness ISN'T or what thinking ISN'T. Naively let us say consciousness is NOT a large list of weights (i.e. an LLM). The uncanny emergent ability of an LLM depends entirely on training data. A mathematical model is used to match output against training data (via loss functions etc). The training data contains all the human ingenuity, logic, rational, patterns and features. Try giving an LLM model the alphabet ALONE and see what it comes up with? Why are you able to immediately reason that given the alphabet alone it could not 'reason', 'think' or produce much of anything useful. To address briefly the idea of reasoning and something assembling reasoning somehow implying the same thing. Try the following thought experiment. Given a simulated world (e.g. The Matrix), no matter how good the simulation you would not actually get WET.