Apophenia (media.piefed.social)
submitted 9 months ago by to c/fuck_ai@lemmy.world
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 32 points 9 months ago (13 children)

The difference is knowledge. You know what an apple is. A LLM does not. It has training data that has the word apple is associated with the words red, green, pie, and doctor.

The model then uses a random number generator to mix those words up a bit, and see if the result looks a bit like the training data, and if it does, the model spits out a sequence of words that may or may not be a sentence, depending on the size and quality of the training data.

At no point is any actual meaning associated with any of the words. The model is just trying to fit different shaped blocks through different shaped holes, and sometimes everything goes through the square hole, and you get hallucinations.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 13 child comments
  • [+] 7 points 9 months ago (13 children)
  • [–] 4 points 9 months ago (1 child)

    You can tell a person to think about apples, and the person will think about apples.

    You can tell an LLM 'think about apples' and the LLM will say 'Okay' but it won't think about apples; it is only saying 'okay' because its training data suggests that is the most common response to someone asking someone else to think about apples. LLMs do not have an internal experience. They are statistical models.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [+] 2 points 9 months ago (1 child)
  • [–] 3 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

    You misunderstand. The outcome of asking an LLM to think about an apple is the token 'Okay'. It probably doesn't get very far into even what you claim is 'thought' about apples, because when someone says the phrase "Think about X", the immediate response is almost always 'Okay' and never anything about whatever 'X' is. That is the sum total of its objective. It does not perform a facsimile of human thought; it performs an analysis of what the most likely next token would be, given what text existed before it. It imitates human output without any of the behavior or thought processes that lead up to that output in humans. There is no model of how the world works. There is no theory of mind. There is only how words are related to each other with no 'understanding'. It's very good at outputting reasonable text, and even drawing inferences based on word relations, but anthropomorphizing LLMs is a path that leads to exactly the sort of conclusion that the original comic is mocking.

    Asking an LLM if it is alive does not cause the LLM to ponder the possibility of whether or not it is alive. It causes the LLM to output the response most similar to its training data, and nothing more. It is incapable of pondering its own existence, because that isn't how it works.

    Yes, our brains are actually an immensely complex neural network, but beyond that the structure is so ridiculously different that it's closer to comparing apples to the concept of justice than comparing apples to oranges.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • [–] 15 points 9 months ago (3 children)

    You think you are saying things which proves you are knowledgeable on this topic, but you are not.

    The human brain is not a computer. And any comparisons between the two are wildly simplistic and likely to introduce more error than meaning into the discourse.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] -2 points 9 months ago (2 children)

    What is this whole "human beings are special and have a soul?". You happen to experience things you "feel", that's it. Everything else is just like a specialized computer, shapped by nature to act in a certain way.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 9 months ago (6 children)

    but it’s essentially the same thing, just much much more complex

    If you say that all your statements and beliefs are a slurry of weighted averages depending on how often you’ve seen something without any thought or analysis involved, I will believe you 🤷‍♂️

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [+] 2 points 9 months ago (6 children)
  • [–] 10 points 9 months ago (4 children)

    In fact, since we do know the basic fundamentals of how brains work, it would seem that’s exactly what’s happening.

    I encourage you to try to find and cite any reputable neuroscientist that believes we can even quantify what thought is, much less believes both A) we ‘know the basic fundamentals of how brains work’ and B) it’s just like an LLM.

    Your argument isn’t a line of reasoning invented by neuroscientists, it’s one invented by people who need to sell more AI processors. I know which group I think has a better handle on the brain.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [+] 0 points 9 months ago (4 children)
  • [–] 8 points 9 months ago (1 child)

    show emergent abilities

    Immediate mark of a someone who is deceiving or has been deceived.

    And so if it looks like intelligence, then it is intelligence

    Wow, you mean I can understand Chinese?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • [–] 7 points 9 months ago (1 child)

    what's your point? do you believe that llms actually understand their own output?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • load more comments (-1 replies)