• EatATaco@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    5 months ago

    Why is that a criticism? This is how it works for humans too: we study, we learn the stuff, and then try to recall it during tests. We’ve been trained on the data too, for neither a human nor an ai would be able to do well on the test without learning it first.

    This is part of what makes ai so “scary” that it can basically know so much.

    • Soyweiser@awful.systems
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      5 months ago

      Dont anthropomorphise. There is quite the difference between a human and an advanced lookuptable.

      • EatATaco@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        5 months ago

        I absolutely agree. However, if you think the LLMs are just fancy LUTs, then I strongly disagree. Unless, of course, we are also just fancy LUTs.

        • captainlezbian@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          5 months ago

          You ever meet an ai researcher with a background in biology? I’ve discussed this stuff with one. She disagrees with Turing about machines thinking including when ai is in the picture. They process information very differently from how biology does

          • EatATaco@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            5 months ago

            This is a vague non answer, although I agree it’s done very differently because our process is biological and ai is not.

            But as I asked elsewhere, what’s the effective difference?

            • self@awful.systems
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              5 months ago

              so to summarize, your only contributions to this thread are to go “well uh you just don’t know how LLMs work” while providing absolutely no detail of your own, and reporting our regulars for “Civility” when they rightly called you out for being a fucking idiot who’s way out of their depth

              how fucking embarrassing for you

      • EatATaco@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        5 months ago

        I guess it comes down to a philosophical question as to what “know” actually means.

        But from my perspective is that it certainly knows some things. It knows how to determine what I’m asking, and it clearly knows how to formulate a response by stitching together information. Is it perfect? No. But neither are humans, we mistakenly believe we know things all the time, and miscommunications are quite common.

        But this is why I asked the follow up question…what’s the effective difference? Don’t get me wrong, they clearly have a lot of flaws right now. But my 8 year old had a lot of flaws too, and I assume both will get better with age.

        • flere-imsaho@awful.systems
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          5 months ago

          i guess it comes down to a philosophical question

          no, it doesn’t, and it’s not a philosophical question (and neither is this a question of philosophy).

          the software simply has no cognitive capabilities.

          • EatATaco@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            5 months ago

            I’m not sure I agree, but then it goes to my second question:

            What’s the effective difference?

            • braxy29@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              5 months ago

              don’t know why you got downvoted, an LLM is essentially a chinese room, and whether such a room “knows” is still the question.

                • Turun@feddit.de
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  5 months ago

                  Thanks for the link, that’s a fascinating article.

                  The thought experiment (I really liked it) has convinced me that an LLM cannot learn meaning the same way a human does.

                  But two counter arguments arise: first - does it matter? If the only interaction is through thai text, how could the difference between understanding the meaning of Thai text and simple text completion through infinite studying of Thai books be asserted? And second - how is this changed by multimodal models? The author explicitly states that all images are removed from the library and, when asking others on their opinions of the thought experiment, “I’d look for an encyclopedia with images” is considered cheating. That means the author considers images as a weak point of the thought experiment. If the presence of other media did not change the outcome they would not have to be excluded. And if multi modal models change your opinion is that not simply because you underestimated how much you can do with infinite time in a Thai library? What is the fundamental difference between text and an image?

          • Soyweiser@awful.systems
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            5 months ago

            The dehumanization that happens just because people think LLMs are impressive (they are, just not that impressive) is insane.