ttpphd

11 ms·

91.
by ttpphd 3y ago
I am not sure I agree with that assessment. The author describes a large language model as having unconscious thoughts.
92.
by ttpphd 3y ago
rubs temples It's a large language model. It is not smart or dumb. It models the input it is trained on. It is not figuring anything out. It doesn't know anything. It isn't reasoning. It is generating text. When will the El
93.
by ttpphd 3y ago
Hi waves I am a hearing scientist. There is not enough information provided in this write-up to judge the data. Take it with a big grain of salt. There could be UI/UX factors that are not accounted for which could swamp out any sort
94.
by ttpphd 3y ago
I don't think this is surprising at all?
95.
by ttpphd 3y ago
What a bananas list! Thanks for sharing it.
96.
by ttpphd 4y ago
The letter links to an exposé on the racist ideology behind longtermism. You don't have to take my word for it.
97.
by ttpphd 4y ago
Thank you, yes, for saying I am right in saying that the evidence is lacking, which was precisely my original point.
98.
by ttpphd 4y ago
I don't like buying into hype mindlessly. I prefer to reason through things and apply skepticism. If people are gonna claim that a chatbot has gained sentience, I'm gonna have some tough questions.
99.
by ttpphd 4y ago
For a human, it takes human reasoning. But a xerox machine can also output the correct answers given the right inputs, which is exactly what you can say about an LLM. The "attribute of importance" I'm referring to is "ra
100.
by ttpphd 4y ago
It's a specific ideology that has ties to white supremacists and other racists.
101.
by ttpphd 4y ago
You are making a claim that there is some attribute of importance. For that claim to be persuasive, it should be supported with an explanation of what that attribute is and is not, and evidence for or against the meeting of those criteria.
102.
by ttpphd 4y ago
https://archive.is/N6ZiF
103.
by ttpphd 4y ago
It is a large language model. It manipulates text based on context and the imprint of its vast training. You are not able to articulate a theory of reasoning. You are just pointing to the output of an algorithm and saying "this must me
104.
by ttpphd 4y ago
Lol well to answer your question literally, I think integrationist linguistics and Wittgenstein's thoughts about language use as a social action are way more relevant to understanding what's happening with LLMs (and people's
105.
by ttpphd 4y ago
In this moment it would be better if people would read some Wittgenstein and Roy Harris, IMHO.
106.
by ttpphd 4y ago
It's a large language model. It is fed training data. It is not that impressive when it spits out stuff that looks like its training data. You are the one asserting things without evidence.
107.
by ttpphd 4y ago
This is really lofty language without much evidence to back it up. It fluffs up techie people and makes them feel powerful, but it doesn't really describe large language models nor does it describe linguistic processes.
108.
by ttpphd 4y ago
Well, could you clarify, is it >exclusively myopic or is it >a bit narrow-minded ? I see these women as more open and accurate about the most immediate risks and ethical issues, so I see them as justified in being opinionated and expr
109.
by ttpphd 4y ago
It seems to really get to you.
110.
by ttpphd 4y ago
My rationality and agency is not a question of you interpreting the words and letters that appear in a textbox on a screen. The same is not true of a large language model. You do not have a rigorous theory of rationality and agency with whi
111.
by ttpphd 4y ago
Disaster capitalism! Seriously though, if you are interested in addressing the real, presently-timed harms of large language models (and the capitalists who deploy them), this letter is just the thing: Statement from the listed authors of S
112.
by ttpphd 4y ago
Because of all the ways in which it's obviously not a reasoning actor, starting from the design of the system, and all the ways in which it is literally engineered, by design, to output text that sounds like a human wrote it, based on
113.
by ttpphd 4y ago
I can confidently say that you do not have a theory of rationality which explains the workings of an LLM.
114.
by ttpphd 4y ago
When you hear someone speak, are you thinking their thoughts? We are talking about a model of language and our expectations for what the words would look like if a person were using language to reason with. People are confusing one thing (t
115.
by ttpphd 4y ago
It doesn't reason, it produces output that better conforms to your expectations of a reasoning actor.
116.
by ttpphd 4y ago
See also: https://www.explainpaper.com/
117.
by ttpphd 4y ago
"I only see social media as a bad thing for humanity." Only? That is some black and white thinking.
118.
by ttpphd 4y ago
Ok, I'll bite. What does she have to do with this?
119.
by ttpphd 4y ago
Would love to have an explanation of statistical vs total uncertainty, how they are quantified and how they are different.
120.
by ttpphd 4y ago
Lolsob

More ›