3 ms·

>BUT THEY RELY ON HUMAN INPUTS humans rely on human inputs. can then talk about the small number of humans who push the boundaries of knowledge and then talk a

by fsckboy 19d ago

>BUT THEY RELY ON HUMAN INPUTS humans rely on human inputs. can then talk about the small number of humans who push the boundaries of knowledge and then talk about when LLMs solve difficult math problems...

jackeee1 19d ago
[flagged]
- fsckboy 19d ago
  how many humans would invent writing without being taught in school? how about algebra? how about arabic numeral-ing? and you have no idea how humans reason, but LLMs are neural networks, what do you think neural refers to?
  - jackeee1 19d ago
    [flagged]
    - fsckboy 19d ago
      a fuckboy is a sexually attractive and amourously successful male that women who want to tie a man down should stay away from. you've begun to suss out my username! now add in the fsck aspect
  - throwaway173738 19d ago
    Nobody invented writing. Various people probably independently started making marks on things to signify amounts of stuff. Some people drew likenesses of things. This continued for millenia and became more and more elaborate. It wasn’t born from someone’s head on a single fateful day. All human endeavor is like that, from the most minute thing like carpentry nails to the most elaborate. All of it is the result of collaboration between us and our ancestors.
    - fsckboy 19d ago
      you restated "humans learn from other humans, and slowly at that" so I guess you are indicating that computers do it faster, this activity of learning from other humans. I said the same thing you mean, "no human will invent writing, they can only use writing as a productivity tool because they learned it from other humans. Therefore, in the context of my comment, saying "they learn from humans" is not a valid criticism of LLMs because humans also learn from humans, or live like cavemen" you are agreeing with me, just hot under the collar about it.
ahf8Aithaex7Nai 19d ago
There seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding here that many LLM advocates fall prey to. No one claims (anymore) that LLMs are completely useless. We agree that these tools can boost productivity. But there is a fundamental difference between human creativity and the statistical processing of large amounts of data in an artificial neural network. The latter can yield new insights for the person operating the LLM. But if the insight was more or less contained 1-to-1 in the training data, this confirms the observation that the original contribution of LLMs consists mainly of unearthing relevant facts, but is otherwise very limited when it comes to synthetic judgments (in the Kantian sense). If the claims made by LLM manufacturers regarding these systems' own capabilities repeatedly turn out to be little more than a hoax, critics of this practice shouldn't simply be dismissed as Luddites. Instead, we should acknowledge that, despite their remarkable capabilities, these systems ultimately deliver far, far, far less than what the snake-oil salesmen—cruising through the valley in their Koenigseggs—repeatedly promise to the public and investors. Anyone who still hasn't grasped this, even though it's so obvious, should urgently focus more on what is actually the case and less on what is being sold to us as the future. Anyone who thinks that technological leaps can simply be extrapolated linearly like this is just naive!
- jackeee1 19d ago
  [dead]
- fsckboy 19d ago
  >There seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding here that many LLM advocates fall prey to. I am not an LLM advocate (nor am I an LLM skeptic), I simply observe and think about what I see. So, I guess your comment is not intended for me? >No one claims (anymore) that LLMs are completely useless. We agree that these tools can boost productivity. I read this as something a skeptic would write as apologium for himself: "I am stubborn and stick my heels in when presented with something new, first at productivity, but when forced to retreat, now taking a stand at creativity." but again, you are defending/attacking a point that doesn't apply to me. I wrote originally to say "they learn from humans" was not a good argument against LLMs because humans learn from other humans. (a simple point which was why my comment was simple) Very few humans are Aristotle, Newton, or Einstein, and those three were as well building on the work of others.

by fsckboy 19d ago

jackeee1 19d ago

[flagged]

fsckboy 19d ago
how many humans would invent writing without being taught in school? how about algebra? how about arabic numeral-ing? and you have no idea how humans reason, but LLMs are neural networks, what do you think neural refers to?
- jackeee1 19d ago
  [flagged]
  - fsckboy 19d ago
    a fuckboy is a sexually attractive and amourously successful male that women who want to tie a man down should stay away from. you've begun to suss out my username! now add in the fsck aspect
- throwaway173738 19d ago
  Nobody invented writing. Various people probably independently started making marks on things to signify amounts of stuff. Some people drew likenesses of things. This continued for millenia and became more and more elaborate. It wasn’t born from someone’s head on a single fateful day. All human endeavor is like that, from the most minute thing like carpentry nails to the most elaborate. All of it is the result of collaboration between us and our ancestors.
  - fsckboy 19d ago
    you restated "humans learn from other humans, and slowly at that" so I guess you are indicating that computers do it faster, this activity of learning from other humans. I said the same thing you mean, "no human will invent writing, they can only use writing as a productivity tool because they learned it from other humans. Therefore, in the context of my comment, saying "they learn from humans" is not a valid criticism of LLMs because humans also learn from humans, or live like cavemen" you are agreeing with me, just hot under the collar about it.

ahf8Aithaex7Nai 19d ago

There seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding here that many LLM advocates fall prey to. No one claims (anymore) that LLMs are completely useless. We agree that these tools can boost productivity. But there is a fundamental difference between human creativity and the statistical processing of large amounts of data in an artificial neural network. The latter can yield new insights for the person operating the LLM. But if the insight was more or less contained 1-to-1 in the training data, this confirms the observation that the original contribution of LLMs consists mainly of unearthing relevant facts, but is otherwise very limited when it comes to synthetic judgments (in the Kantian sense). If the claims made by LLM manufacturers regarding these systems' own capabilities repeatedly turn out to be little more than a hoax, critics of this practice shouldn't simply be dismissed as Luddites. Instead, we should acknowledge that, despite their remarkable capabilities, these systems ultimately deliver far, far, far less than what the snake-oil salesmen—cruising through the valley in their Koenigseggs—repeatedly promise to the public and investors. Anyone who still hasn't grasped this, even though it's so obvious, should urgently focus more on what is actually the case and less on what is being sold to us as the future. Anyone who thinks that technological leaps can simply be extrapolated linearly like this is just naive!

jackeee1 19d ago
[dead]
fsckboy 19d ago
>There seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding here that many LLM advocates fall prey to. I am not an LLM advocate (nor am I an LLM skeptic), I simply observe and think about what I see. So, I guess your comment is not intended for me? >No one claims (anymore) that LLMs are completely useless. We agree that these tools can boost productivity. I read this as something a skeptic would write as apologium for himself: "I am stubborn and stick my heels in when presented with something new, first at productivity, but when forced to retreat, now taking a stand at creativity." but again, you are defending/attacking a point that doesn't apply to me. I wrote originally to say "they learn from humans" was not a good argument against LLMs because humans learn from other humans. (a simple point which was why my comment was simple) Very few humans are Aristotle, Newton, or Einstein, and those three were as well building on the work of others.