4 ms·
> I know people who are like that too. This is part of the problem being described. You are part of the problem. "Some people are bad at X" is not comparable—
by danaris 1mo ago
> I know people who are like that too.
This is part of the problem being described. You are part of the problem.
"Some people are bad at X" is not comparable—is not even in the same category—as "LLMs are fundamentally incapable of X".
Every human (at least to a first approximation) is capable of understanding, of learning, of remembering things, of doing math, of counting the number of "r"s in "strawberry".
What you are observing is that some humans are careless, do not take the time and effort to understand, or have internalized the idea that they're "not smart enough" or "not the type of person" who understands things like <whatever>.
That has nothing remotely to do with the fact that LLMs have no consciousness, no self-awareness, no cognition, no understanding. At a fundamental level.
- JohnMakin 1mo agoI don't think anyone in this conversation is saying this behavior is anything but the fault of the user not understanding how these tools work? This is a weirdly aggressive post.
- danaris 1mo agoThis is an extremely common fallacy I've seen lots and lots of people fall into with respect to LLMs. In nearly every case, they use the fact that "some humans can't do X" to claim that LLMs are, in fact, basically conscious/human-like/AGI already. This is deeply untrue, and is highly likely to lead them to bad conclusions about what we can and should do with LLMs.
- throw310822 1mo ago> This is an extremely common fallacy ... they use the fact that "some humans can't do X" to claim that LLMs are, in fact, basically conscious/human-like/AGI already. Claiming that LLMs are conscious or human-like because humans can't do X seems a very strange way to argue for LLM intelligence. Usually, it goes the other way around: an LLM sceptic says "LLMs are dumb because they can't do X" and soon someone has to remind them that also most of the population can't, in fact, do X.
- randomImmigrant 1mo ago“ Usually, it goes the other way around: an LLM sceptic says "LLMs are dumb because they can't do X" and soon someone has to remind them that also most of the population can't, in fact, do X.” And it should not go this way, is the OPs point. For an analogy, imagine someone looked at a bunch of lightbulbs and expresses dissatisfaction that they aren’t really stars. If someone replies by saying “not all stars are equally bright”, do you think that fact should carry any weight in the argument?
- throw310822 1mo ago> And it should not go this way, is the OPs point Well, he's wrong. If you argue that LLMs and humans are fundamentally different because all LLMs do X and no human does it, then showing you that it's not true demolishes your argument. Doesn't prove anything positive, but it certainly proves that your argument is invalid.
- randomImmigrant 1mo agoWell this requires you to buy the very bullshit argument that comparisons of two physically distinct systems just because they share outputs is meaningful. If I call a lightbulb an artificial star, the onus is on me to show the behavior under the hood is star like, not just to point at the light and say “you must see it’s a a star since it’s emitting light!”.
- throw310822 1mo ago> Well this requires you to buy the very bullshit argument Sorry, no. The only thing it requires you to buy is basic logic. If you argue that B is true because of A, the fact that A is false invalidates your argument (I repeat: not B but your argument). There is no question about it.
- Dilettante_ 1mo ago"One man's modus ponens..."
- JohnMakin 1mo agoJust a heads up - this person in gp comment, their original post in a way that is much much different than the one I was replying to originally both in tone and content.