71
Trusting your own judgement on 'AI' is a huge risk (www.baldurbjarnason.com)
submitted 1 year ago by to c/programming@programming.dev
45 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

OC below by @HaraldvonBlauzahn@feddit.org

What called my attention is that assessments of AI are becoming polarized and somewhat a matter of belief.

Some people firmly believe LLMs are helpful. But programming is a logical task and LLMs can't think - only generate statistically plausible patterns.

The author of the article explains that this creates the same psychological hazards like astrology or tarot cards, psychological traps that have been exploited by psychics for centuries - and even very intelligent people can fall prey to these.

Finally what should cause alarm is that on top that LLMs can't think, but people behave as if they do, there is no objective scientifically sound examination whether AI models can create any working software faster. Given that there are multi-billion dollar investments, and there was more than enough time to carry through controlled experiments, this should raise loud alarm bells.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] -1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (12 children)

I asked for your definition, I cannot prove something if we do not agree on a definition first.
You also missread what I said, I did not said AI were thinking.
The burden of proof is on the one who made an affirmation.
I'm not the one who made an affirmation which field experts doesn't know the answer.
But depending of your definition of thinking, some can be answered.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago* (11 children)

    I don't think y'all are disagreeing but maybe this sentence is somewhat confusing:

    If you think LLMs doesnt think (I won’t argue that they arent extremely dumb), please define what is thinking,

    Maybe the "doesnt" shouldn't be there.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago* (10 children)

    No it is here because that's what they claim.
    Nobody yet know how it work, we don't know how LLMs process information.
    Anyone who claim it really think, or it isn't thinking, is believing, this is not something the current ML field know.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago (9 children)

    Well, the neural network is given a prefix (series of tokens) and a token, and it spits out how likely is it that the token follows the prefix. Text is generated by calculating this probability for all known tokens, then picking one random, weighted based on the calculated probabilities.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago (8 children)

    And the brain is made out of neurons that sends electric signals between them and operate muscles.
    That doesnt explain how the brain think.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (7 children)

    It allows us to conclude that an LLM doesn't "think" about what it is saying. Based on the mechanics, the LLM doesn't even know it's a participant in the conversation.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (5 children)

    By that logic we also conclude that the human brain doesn't "think" about what it is saying.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    That does not follow. I can't speak for you, but I can tell if I'm involved in a conversation or not.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (2 children)

    And how do you know LLMs can't tell that they are involved in a conversation?

    Unless you think there is something non-computational in the human brain, then you must accept that computers are - in theory - capable of thinking. With the right software and sufficiently powerful hardware.

    Given that truth (which I think you can only avoid through religion or quantum quackery), you can't just say "it's only maths; it can't be thinking" because we know that maths can think.

    Do LLMs "think"? The definition of "think" is wooly enough and we understand them little enough that it's quite an assertion to say that they definitely don't.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (1 child)

    And how do you know LLMs can’t tell that they are involved in a conversation?

    It has no memory, for one. What makes you think that it does know its in a conversation?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago

    It has no memory, for one.

    It has very short term memory in the form of it's token context. Especially with something like Meta's Coconut.

    What makes you think that it does know its in a conversation?

    I don't really. Yet. But I also don't think that it is fundamentally impossible for LLMs to think, like you seem to. I also don't think the definition of the word "think" is so narrow that it requires that level of self-awareness. Do you think a mouse is really aware it is a mouse? What about a spider?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent