kilgnad

29 ms·

241.
by kilgnad 4y ago
Hold on. I'm not biased here. I already admitted my knowledge is outdated. I am actively welcoming new information. I am not arguing. No the elegance of the theory does not matter. The truth of the theory does. I'm saying does the
242.
by kilgnad 4y ago
Well the model needs to be invalidated by science not by elegance or logic. Which grammar is actually more universal or is it a case where both can be applied. In the class I attended Chmosky's stuff was taught as foundational linguist
243.
by kilgnad 4y ago
A animal like a bear or a monkey doesn't understand the world the way you do either. But when we use the word "understand" it applies to these animals because of an isomorphism. I'm saying that same isomorphism exists. M
244.
by kilgnad 4y ago
>If that was the case I’d expect LLMs to fail in the same way humans do, to exhibit similar self correction. I’d expect them to not fail in the ways they do fail, in the ways that humans don't. It’s these completely different behavi
245.
by kilgnad 4y ago
Rust is weird. It has high level features that make is superior to high level languages like go and python. But the low level features like default move semantics inevitably make it harder. IMO there is merit in making a language that is eq
246.
by kilgnad 4y ago
No. Your explanation applies to transformations from question to explanation. For this transformation you have an argument because explanations themselves exist in the training set. This makes sense. Even a novel explanation could be just a
247.
by kilgnad 4y ago
They're just telling you how LLMs work. Anyone can understand the underlying algorithm with a bit of study. It's trivial. Nobody is understanding the high level emergent effects of LLMs plus training. What the ML scientists say ha
248.
by kilgnad 4y ago
Except in the example that you read, it cannot have done what it did without understanding what it was asked.
249.
by kilgnad 4y ago
It has not been trained to specifically to produce this text. It was trained randomly on random text from the internet. The production of this text is a side effect of that training. You will note that this text is more detailed and nuanced
250.
by kilgnad 4y ago
I'm outdated on this research. I took a linguistics class in UCLA about a decade ago and at the time universal grammar was the prevailing norm. Has it changed since then? Have they found a significant number of human civilizations that
251.
by kilgnad 4y ago
Hmm I think it's sort of a hybrid. First off, we know that overall the concept of language is humans is an emergent phenomenon. It developed from natural selection from simple components so there's validity that the same thing can
252.
by kilgnad 4y ago
Much of the failure modes you see in Bing, have been eliminated in chatGPT through reinforcement training. It just needs more. Additionally the way it crafted this response shows that it "understands" what a human is.
253.
by kilgnad 4y ago
> It now produces better textual summaries of biographies, because that’s just text, but it still doesn’t have any concept of what a person is, even if it can generate texts saying it does. We’ve talked about philosophical zombies before
254.
by kilgnad 4y ago
You can't think about it this way. It's nascent technology. It's like you're not amazed that they were able to create an AI because that AI has 20 points lower IQ then you. Bro, the fact that they even created an AI like
255.
by kilgnad 4y ago
A low bar? You're saying if someone recreates an AI that imitates biden or trump perfectly that we failed to do anything impressive? Talk about self denial. chatGPT literally passed the turing test and people are still literally just t
256.
by kilgnad 4y ago
I think a couple months ago it didn't do this. WHich is what caused a lot of people to jump on the hate train. They just added additional reinforcement training which is basically more users picking right and wrong answers. This much i
257.
by kilgnad 4y ago
>I'm not convinced at this point that conversational AI fills any legitimate use cases. \ There's tons of use cases. One of the use cases is definitely NOT startlingly accurate citations. But you're delusional if you think
258.
by kilgnad 4y ago
Epistemology is just another category error in a category error. What is the study of knowledge? It's the study of everything on the face of the earth, just like philosophy.
259.
by kilgnad 4y ago
> Every area of human cognition is affected by philosophy. Mathematics certainly merits its own philosophic treatment. This is the problem I have with philosophy. It's a huge category error. It's too broad. Why is there a philo
260.
by kilgnad 4y ago
This concept was explored in a stephen spielberg movie. Minority report. Good movie. Watch it. Stars Tom Cruise and has mission impossible vibes. In the end the government cancelled the program because of free will. A person always has the
261.
by kilgnad 4y ago
ME: Is this fact unequivocal among scientists who study this field? chatGPT: The idea that the ultimate goal of biological organisms is to survive and reproduce is a fundamental assumption of evolutionary biology, and it is wide
262.
by kilgnad 4y ago
ME: What is the goal of a biological organism in the context of evolutionary biology? chatGPT: From an evolutionary biology perspective, the goal of a biological organism is not to achieve any particular objective or purpose, but
263.
by kilgnad 4y ago
I don't think that's a danger. What danger is there to anyone if people falsely think AI has emotions? It doesn't follow. Also it's just wrong. I think 99% of people are clear about the fact that chatGPT doesn't hav
264.
by kilgnad 4y ago
No I'm talking about an actual news report: https://www.cnbc.com/2023/01/31/google-testing-chatgpt-like-... It does have a deep understanding of self. See here: https://www.engraved.blog/
265.
by kilgnad 4y ago
I see what you're saying. AI is probably better in the long run for society. But the transition period can take up to a single life time. I think there is at least one or two generations of people who will suffer as a result. Unless yo
266.
by kilgnad 4y ago
awwww thanks buddy! I'm 100% better now after that comment. Bye bye now.
267.
by kilgnad 4y ago
The output of LLMs implies a higher level structure. You can't solely discuss the lower level underpinning unless you deliberately do not acknowledge that the output of LLMs are implying something else.
268.
by kilgnad 4y ago
Well we have a thing that passes a Google interview and a bar exam. You're telling me that because I think this is evidence that it's more then a statistical word generator that I'm biased? Who's the one that has to conc
269.
by kilgnad 4y ago
Uh. No. I don't. I'm not enthusiastic. I don't want ai to take over my job. I don't want any of this to happen. I'm also not fighting people. Just disagreeing. Big difference.
270.
by kilgnad 4y ago
Don't know. But the fact that it often produces a "smart" answer is a phenomenon that needs investigation. You cannot simply dismiss this thing that passes a Google L3 interview and bar exam just because it got some addition

More ›