▲ 1224 ▼ 95% of Companies See ‘Zero Return’ on $30 Billion Generative AI Spend, MIT Report Finds (thedailyadda.com) submitted 1 year ago by kalkulat@lemmy.world to c/technology@lemmy.world 221 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[+] REDACTED@infosec.pub -15 points 1 year ago (5 children) You partly described reasoning tho https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasoning_system permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] Traister101@lemmy.today 14 points 1 year ago (3 children) If you truly believe that you fundamentally misunderstand the definition of that word or are being purposely disingenuous as you Ai brown nose folk tend to be. To pretend for a second you genuinely just don't understand how to read LLMs, the most advanced "Ai" they are trying to sell everybody is as capable of reasoning as any compression algorithm, jpg, png, webp, zip, tar whatever you want. They cannot reason. They take some input and generate an output deterministically. The reason the output changes slightly is because they put random shit in there for complicated important reasons. Again to recap here LLMs and similar neural network "Ai" is as capable of reasoning as any other computer program you interact with knowingly or unknowingly, that being not at all. Your silly Wikipedia page is a very specific term "Reasoning System" which would include stuff like standard video game NPC Ai such as the zombies in Minecraft. I hope you aren't stupid enough to say those are capable of reasoning permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [+] REDACTED@infosec.pub -9 points 1 year ago (2 children) Wtf? Do I even have to point out the parts you need to read? Go back and start reading at sentence that says "In typical use in the Information Technology field however, the phrase is usually reserved for systems that perform more complex kinds of reasoning.", and then check out NLP page, or part about machine learning, which are all seperate/different reasoning systems, but we just tend to say "reasoning". Not your hilarious NPC anology. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Traister101@lemmy.today 2 points 1 year ago (1 child) More complex forms of reasoning in the context of "Reasoning Systems" is video game NPC Ai. They take the current game state and "reason" about what action they should take now or even soon in the future. Really good video game Ai will use your velocity to pre-aim projectiles at where you'll be in the future instead of where you are currently. The NPC analogy is one of the very thing's being described by the term permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] REDACTED@infosec.pub -1 points 1 year ago That would be a conditional logic system, not reasoning system. By your logic, aimbots are reasoning systems. It's simple math with some if/then operators sprinkled inbetween. A proper reasoning system implies some kind of inference, manipulation, logical chaining, or at least the ability to justify/modify its own choices outside of pre-coded logic. NPCs don’t do that. They just follow hand-crafted rules, or at best, utility scores (shoot now, run later, hide if health < 30). permalink fedilink source parent [–] cmhe@lemmy.world 11 points 1 year ago* This link is about reasoning system, not reasoning. Reasoning involves actually understanding the knowledge, not just having it. Testing or validating where knowledge is contradictionary. LLM doesn't understand the difference between hard and soft rules of the world. Everything is up to debate, everything is just text and words that can be ordered with some probabilities. It cannot check if something is true, it just 'knows' that someone on the internet talked about something, sometimes with and often without or contradicting resolutions.. It is a gossip machine, that trys to 'reason' about whatever it has heard people say. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Traister101@lemmy.today 14 points 1 year ago (3 children) If you truly believe that you fundamentally misunderstand the definition of that word or are being purposely disingenuous as you Ai brown nose folk tend to be. To pretend for a second you genuinely just don't understand how to read LLMs, the most advanced "Ai" they are trying to sell everybody is as capable of reasoning as any compression algorithm, jpg, png, webp, zip, tar whatever you want. They cannot reason. They take some input and generate an output deterministically. The reason the output changes slightly is because they put random shit in there for complicated important reasons. Again to recap here LLMs and similar neural network "Ai" is as capable of reasoning as any other computer program you interact with knowingly or unknowingly, that being not at all. Your silly Wikipedia page is a very specific term "Reasoning System" which would include stuff like standard video game NPC Ai such as the zombies in Minecraft. I hope you aren't stupid enough to say those are capable of reasoning permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [+] REDACTED@infosec.pub -9 points 1 year ago (2 children) Wtf? Do I even have to point out the parts you need to read? Go back and start reading at sentence that says "In typical use in the Information Technology field however, the phrase is usually reserved for systems that perform more complex kinds of reasoning.", and then check out NLP page, or part about machine learning, which are all seperate/different reasoning systems, but we just tend to say "reasoning". Not your hilarious NPC anology. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Traister101@lemmy.today 2 points 1 year ago (1 child) More complex forms of reasoning in the context of "Reasoning Systems" is video game NPC Ai. They take the current game state and "reason" about what action they should take now or even soon in the future. Really good video game Ai will use your velocity to pre-aim projectiles at where you'll be in the future instead of where you are currently. The NPC analogy is one of the very thing's being described by the term permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] REDACTED@infosec.pub -1 points 1 year ago That would be a conditional logic system, not reasoning system. By your logic, aimbots are reasoning systems. It's simple math with some if/then operators sprinkled inbetween. A proper reasoning system implies some kind of inference, manipulation, logical chaining, or at least the ability to justify/modify its own choices outside of pre-coded logic. NPCs don’t do that. They just follow hand-crafted rules, or at best, utility scores (shoot now, run later, hide if health < 30). permalink fedilink source parent
[+] REDACTED@infosec.pub -9 points 1 year ago (2 children) Wtf? Do I even have to point out the parts you need to read? Go back and start reading at sentence that says "In typical use in the Information Technology field however, the phrase is usually reserved for systems that perform more complex kinds of reasoning.", and then check out NLP page, or part about machine learning, which are all seperate/different reasoning systems, but we just tend to say "reasoning". Not your hilarious NPC anology. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Traister101@lemmy.today 2 points 1 year ago (1 child) More complex forms of reasoning in the context of "Reasoning Systems" is video game NPC Ai. They take the current game state and "reason" about what action they should take now or even soon in the future. Really good video game Ai will use your velocity to pre-aim projectiles at where you'll be in the future instead of where you are currently. The NPC analogy is one of the very thing's being described by the term permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] REDACTED@infosec.pub -1 points 1 year ago That would be a conditional logic system, not reasoning system. By your logic, aimbots are reasoning systems. It's simple math with some if/then operators sprinkled inbetween. A proper reasoning system implies some kind of inference, manipulation, logical chaining, or at least the ability to justify/modify its own choices outside of pre-coded logic. NPCs don’t do that. They just follow hand-crafted rules, or at best, utility scores (shoot now, run later, hide if health < 30). permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Traister101@lemmy.today 2 points 1 year ago (1 child) More complex forms of reasoning in the context of "Reasoning Systems" is video game NPC Ai. They take the current game state and "reason" about what action they should take now or even soon in the future. Really good video game Ai will use your velocity to pre-aim projectiles at where you'll be in the future instead of where you are currently. The NPC analogy is one of the very thing's being described by the term permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] REDACTED@infosec.pub -1 points 1 year ago That would be a conditional logic system, not reasoning system. By your logic, aimbots are reasoning systems. It's simple math with some if/then operators sprinkled inbetween. A proper reasoning system implies some kind of inference, manipulation, logical chaining, or at least the ability to justify/modify its own choices outside of pre-coded logic. NPCs don’t do that. They just follow hand-crafted rules, or at best, utility scores (shoot now, run later, hide if health < 30). permalink fedilink source parent
[–] REDACTED@infosec.pub -1 points 1 year ago That would be a conditional logic system, not reasoning system. By your logic, aimbots are reasoning systems. It's simple math with some if/then operators sprinkled inbetween. A proper reasoning system implies some kind of inference, manipulation, logical chaining, or at least the ability to justify/modify its own choices outside of pre-coded logic. NPCs don’t do that. They just follow hand-crafted rules, or at best, utility scores (shoot now, run later, hide if health < 30). permalink fedilink source parent
[–] cmhe@lemmy.world 11 points 1 year ago* This link is about reasoning system, not reasoning. Reasoning involves actually understanding the knowledge, not just having it. Testing or validating where knowledge is contradictionary. LLM doesn't understand the difference between hard and soft rules of the world. Everything is up to debate, everything is just text and words that can be ordered with some probabilities. It cannot check if something is true, it just 'knows' that someone on the internet talked about something, sometimes with and often without or contradicting resolutions.. It is a gossip machine, that trys to 'reason' about whatever it has heard people say. permalink fedilink source parent