encyclopedism

38 ms·

91.
by encyclopedism 10mo ago
I concur with your sentiments. > My paper and pen version of the latest LLM My point here was to attempt to remove the mystery of LLM's by showing the same thing can be done with pen and paper version, after all an LLM is an algorit
92.
by encyclopedism 10mo ago
The definition of things such as reasoning, understanding, intellect are STILL open academic questions. Quite literally humans greatest minds are currently attempting to tease out definitions, whatever we currently have falls short. For exa
93.
by encyclopedism 10mo ago
> The ratio of cognition to knowledge is much higher in humans that LLMs. That is for sure. It is improving in LLMs, particularly small distillations of large models. It isn't a case of ratio it is a fundamentally different method o
94.
by encyclopedism 10mo ago
I couldn't agree with you more. I really do find it puzzling so many on HN are convinced LLM's reason or think and continue to entertain this line of reasoning. At the same time also somehow knowing what precisely the brain/m
95.
by encyclopedism 10mo ago
What bubble? Where is it? I haven't seen it! Here, try my SOTA AI toothbrush.
96.
by encyclopedism 10mo ago
I've mentioned this elsewhere on HN yet it bears repeating: The core issue is that AI is taking away, or will take away, or threatens to take away, experiences and activities that humans would WANT to do. Things that give them meaning
97.
by encyclopedism 10mo ago
> AI is about centralisation of power > So basically, only a few companies that hold on the large models will have all the knowledge required to do things, There are open source models and these will continue to keep abreast of new fe
98.
by encyclopedism 10mo ago
> AI is about centralisation of power I do not believe this is the main reason at all. The core issue is that AI is taking away, or will take away, or threatens to take away, experiences and activities that humans would WANT to do. Thing
99.
by encyclopedism 11mo ago
That was a convoluted read! I did stick to the very end but somethings off with this article.
100.
by encyclopedism 11mo ago
No you couldn't because the human mind definitely DOES not work like an LLM. Though how it does work is an open academic problem. As an example please see the Hard problem of consciousness. There are things when it comes to the brain&#
101.
by encyclopedism 11mo ago
Amazing! Steam could finally drag the Linux Desktop mainstream.
102.
by encyclopedism 11mo ago
That argument you posed does not follow. Brains do all of those things, at least I know mine does because those are the most intimate experiences I have. More intimate than even my sense experiences. It's what lead Kant to exclaim &#x2
103.
by encyclopedism 11mo ago
There is a qualitative difference between humans and LLM's 'hallucinating' (if we can even apply this terminology to humans which I contend is in-appropriate). I'd add a simple thought experiment. A poor student doing a
104.
by encyclopedism 11mo ago
You can make categorical judgements on many things that are hard to define. Often by taking the opposite approach. It's hard to define what consciousness itself is yet I can define what it isn't and that teases a lot out. So I can
105.
by encyclopedism 11mo ago
I would have thought to assume that, but given how many on HN throw about how LLM's can think, reason, understand I think it does bear clearly defining some of the terms used.
106.
by encyclopedism 11mo ago
> The fact is: something fundamental has changed that enables a computer to pretty effectively understand natural language. I have commented elsewhere but this bears repeating LLM's do not think, understand, reason, reflect, compreh
107.
by encyclopedism 11mo ago
That's a very difficult question to answer. It's an open problem in academia. To tease out something often it can be useful to approach problems from the opposite end. For example what is NOT the way in which human cognition works
108.
by encyclopedism 11mo ago
The correct conclusion to draw and also to reiterate: LLM's do not think, understand, reason, reflect, comprehend and they never shall. I have commented elsewhere but this bears repeating If you had enough paper and ink and the patienc
109.
by encyclopedism 11mo ago
One doesn't even need to vibe code. Zoho type apps e.g. mail/smtp already exist there are ton's of free open source options. You can one-click deploy them on AWS/Azure already. To be clear I understand reducing friction
110.
by encyclopedism 11mo ago
I have commented elsewhere but this bears repeating If you had enough paper and ink and the patience to go through it, you could take all the training data and manually step through and train the same model. Then once you have trained the m
111.
by encyclopedism 11mo ago
This is a poor take on what LLM's actually are. They don't understand in any real sense. If you had enough paper and ink and the patience to go through it all you could take all the training data and manually step through and trai
112.
by encyclopedism 11mo ago
> Philosophy seems a term generally reserved for the stuff we don't understand yet and so is inherently kind of speculative. Once you have a definite answer it gets called science instead. As someone has commented earlier, Philosoph
113.
by encyclopedism 11mo ago
I don't think that's it at all. > It still needs guardrails, and some domain knowledge, at least to prevent it from using any destructive commands That just means the AI isn't adequate. Which is the point I am trying to ma
114.
by encyclopedism 11mo ago
That's not it at all. I would ask what you consider science to be?
115.
by encyclopedism 11mo ago
I recognise it because I have had the subjective experience of 'redness'. So whether it exists for any other human I cannot say but I am certainly 100% certain it exists for me. However I should add that I can't fully define
116.
by encyclopedism 11mo ago
It seems to me that 'Philosophy is meaningless' has been ingrained into so many people it's almost propaganda-esque! To see this sentiment from supposed 'scientific' individuals is shocking. I wonder if they could d
117.
by encyclopedism 11mo ago
What I'm trying to tease out is isn't an opinion alone. It's a generally understood problem in the scientific community. I'm highlighting it to illustrate the issues at hand. > So you end up either needing to draw a l
118.
by encyclopedism 11mo ago
> So basically a consumer with no idea of anything. Not knowing is sort of the purpose of AI. It's doing the 'intelligent' part for you. If we need to know it's because the AI is currently NOT good enough. Tech compan
119.
by encyclopedism 11mo ago
I agree with your sentiments wholeheartedly. I would add I find it difficult to understand why so few have even a basic level of philosophical understanding. The attitude of being entirely dismissive of it is the height of ignorance I'
120.
by encyclopedism 11mo ago
> If we can't define, recognize or measure them, how exactly do we know that AI doesn't have them? In the same way my digital thermometer doesn't have quaila. LLM's do not either. I really tire of this handwaving &#x2

More ›