this post was submitted on 07 Mar 2024
299 points (92.4% liked)

Memes

1174 readers
8 users here now

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 16 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (5 children)

Oh no we are NOT doing this shit again. It's literally autocomplete brought to its logical conclusion, don't bring your stupid sophistry into this.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 8 months ago (2 children)

Autocomplete is usually an algorithm. LLMs are neural nets. There's a fundamental technical distinction.

But that's not relevant, because we're not talking about the technical details of LLMs. We're talking about the technical details of human consciousness. And unless you can fully explain where human consciousness comes from, this debate is not settled.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 8 months ago (1 children)

There’s no fundamental technical distinction. Both are composed of the same machine instructions.

LLM is just multiple matrix multiplications after one another until something useful is produced.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 8 months ago (1 children)

So your argument is that consciousness in the human brain is explained by the fact ANNs are technically algorithms because they use Matrix multiplication?

I think we can class you as a non-reasoning organism who just says whatever pattern of words sounds right.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 8 months ago (1 children)

ANNs have very little to do with actual neurons. They’re just vaguely inspired by the latter. Only thing they have in common is that neurons is in the name.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 8 months ago

Okay but that's still not an algorithm and it still has nothing to do with where human consciousness comes from. Are you even paying attention?

[–] [email protected] -2 points 8 months ago

I think it's fun to take this debate a bit biblical too. We're conscious because of our souls, which were created by God. At the same time, nothing in the Bible says that God can't or wouldn't give a soul to a self-aware AI too.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 8 months ago

Lol the dude is wrong but you aren't the boss of what "we"are doing.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

If anyone is using empty sophistry around here I'd say it's you.

What purpose does your dismissive analogy serve? It displays only shallow insight on the actual topic at hand. Just because something very sophisticated can be called the logical conclusion of something simple does not in any way take away from the value of the more sophisticated.

Let's look at: The Internet is literally a LAN brought to its logical conclusion, don't bring your stupid sophistry into this. It's completely shallow and fails to appreciate all of the very significant differences in scale and development. It only serves as words that sound good to a listener on first impression but completely fall apart under actual consideration - i.e sophistry.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 8 months ago (2 children)

Your brain is just a biological system that works somewhat like a neural net. So according to your statement, you too are nothing more than an auto complete machine.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Yes. Now please stop glamorizing both GPAI and GPEI, as neither is going to happen.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

I looked up what GPAI was (apparently it's the "Global Partnership on AI"). However, what's GPEI? The only thing I'm getting is the "Global Polio Eradication Initiative".

I didn't know about any of them till you mentioned them. I dunno abt GPAI, but I sure as hell support GPEI? Who wouldn't want to irradiate Polio?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 8 months ago

It was a typo, sorry. I meant General Purpose Artificial Intelligence / General Purpose Natural Intelligence.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (2 children)

I'm starting to wonder if any of you even know how that shit even works internally, or if you just take what the hype media says at face value. It literally has one purpose and one purpose alone: Determine what the next word is going to be by calculating the probability which word will come after the next. That's it. All it does is try to string a convincing sentence using probabilities. It does not and cannot understand context.

The underlying tech is really cool but a lot of people are grotesquely overselling its capabilities. Not to say a neural network can't eventually obtain consciousness (because ultimately our brains are a union of a bunch of little neural networks working together for a common goal) but it sure as hell isn't going to be an LLM. That's what I meant by sophistry, they're not engaging with the facts, just some nebulous ideal.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 8 months ago

I'm with you on LLMs being over hyped although that's already dying down a bit. But regarding your claim that LLMs cannot "understand context", I've recently read an article that shows that LLMs can have an internal world model:

https://thegradient.pub/othello/

Depending on your definition of "understanding" that seems to be an indicator of being more than a pure "stochastic parrot"

[–] [email protected] 2 points 8 months ago (1 children)

"Intelligence" - The attribute that makes a system propose and modify algorithms autonomously to achieve a certain terminal goal.

The intelligence of a system has nothing to do with the terminal goal. The magnitude of intelligence merely tells us how well the system works in accordance with the terminal goal.

Being self aware is merely a step in the direction of being more and more intelligent. If a system requires interaction with its surroundings, it needs to be able to recognise that it itself is different from its environment.

You are such an intelligent system as well. It's just that instead of having one terminal goal, you have many terminal goals (some may change with time while some might not).

You (this intelligent system) exist in a biological structure. You are nothing but data encoded in a biological form factor, with algorithms that execute through biological processes. If this data and these algorithms are executed on a non biological form factor, would it be any different from you?

LLMs work on some principles that our brains work on as well. Can you see how my point above applies?

[–] [email protected] 0 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

It's like you didn't even read what I posted. Why do I even bother? Sophists literally don't care about facts.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Yes, I read what you posted and answered accordingly. Only, I didn't spend enough time dumbing it down further. So let me dumb it down.

Your main objection was the simplicity of the goal of LLMs- predicting the next word that occurs. Somehow, this simplistic goal makes the system stupid.

In my reply, I first said that self awareness occurs naturally after a system becomes more and more intelligent. I explained the reason as to why. I then went on to explain how a simplistic terminal goal has nothing to do with actual intelligence. Hence, no matter how stupid/simple a terminal goal is, if an intelligent system is challenged enough and given enough resources, it will develop sentience at a given point in time.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 8 months ago

Exactly I literally said none of that shit you're just projecting your own shitty views onto me and asking me to defend them.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 8 months ago