3 ms·

This 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

by danaris 1mo ago

This 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 ago
      Well 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..."
        randomImmigrant 1mo ago
        Maybe if you the argument was that B is only true because of A, and only for that reason. That’s hardly the case when comparing LLMs and humans. The population behavior of humans isn’t the only thing where there’s both overlap and sharp distinction. The underlying mechanism and substrate are also completely different. To say the same process is occurring with all this different is bizarre, and that is why the OP is right about which direction the argument of similarity has meaning. You don’t disagree that our only pre-LLM exemplars of conscious thinking systems is from biology right? If you’re introducing a new member, you have to compare it across all levels before making a similarity claim. It’s the height of ridiculousness to think otherwise.
      - deleted 1mo ago
        [deleted]

by danaris 1mo ago

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 ago
    Well 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..."
      - randomImmigrant 1mo ago
        Maybe if you the argument was that B is only true because of A, and only for that reason. That’s hardly the case when comparing LLMs and humans. The population behavior of humans isn’t the only thing where there’s both overlap and sharp distinction. The underlying mechanism and substrate are also completely different. To say the same process is occurring with all this different is bizarre, and that is why the OP is right about which direction the argument of similarity has meaning. You don’t disagree that our only pre-LLM exemplars of conscious thinking systems is from biology right? If you’re introducing a new member, you have to compare it across all levels before making a similarity claim. It’s the height of ridiculousness to think otherwise.
    - deleted 1mo ago
      [deleted]