The LLM aren’t bullshitting. They can’t lie, because they have no concepts at all. To the machine, the words are all just numerical values with no meaning at all.
Just for the sake of playing a stoner epiphany style of devils advocate: how does thst differ from how actual logical arguments are proven? Hell, why stop there. I mean there isn’t a single thing in the universe that can’t be broken down to a mathematical equation for physics or chemistry? I’m curious as to how different the processes are between a more advanced LLM or AGI model processing data is compares to a severe case savant memorizing libraries of books using their home made mathematical algorithms. I know it’s a leap and I could be wrong but I thought I’ve heard that some of the rainmaker tier of savants actually process every experiences in a mathematical language.
Like I said in the beginning this is straight up bong rips philosophy and haven’t looked up any of the shit I brought up.
I will say tho, I genuinely think the whole LLM shit is without a doubt one of the most amazing advances in technology since the internet. With that being said, I also agree that it has a niche where it will be isolated to being useful under. The problem is that everyone and their slutty mother investing in LLMs are using them for everything they are not useful for and we won’t see any effective use of an AI services until all the current idiots realize they poured hundreds of millions of dollars into something that can’t out perform any more independently than a 3 year old.
First of all, I’m about to give the extreme dumbed down explanation, but there are actual academics covering this topic right now usually using keywords like AI “emergent behavior” and “overfitting”. More specifically about how emergent behavior doesn’t really exist in certain model archetypes and that overfitting increases accuracy but effectively makes it more robotic and useless. There are also studies of how humans think.
Anyways, human’s don’t assign numerical values to words and phrases for the purpose of making a statistical model of a response to a statistical model input.
Humans suck at math.
Humans store data in a much messier unorganized way, and retrieve it by tracing stacks of related concepts back to the root, or fail to memorize data altogether. The values are incredibly diverse and have many attributes to them. Humans do not hallucinate entire documentations up or describe company policies that don’t exist to customers, because we understand the branching complexity and nuance to each individual word and phrase. For a human to describe procedures or creatures that do not exist we would have to be lying for some perceived benefit such as entertainment, unlike an LLM which meant that shit it said but just doesn’t know any better. Just doesn’t know, period.
Maybe an LLM could approach that at some scale if each word had it’s own model with massive amounts more data, but given their diminishing returns displayed so far as we feed in more and more processing power that would take more money and electricity than has ever existed on earth. In fact, that aligns pretty well with OpenAI’s statement that it could make an AGI if it had Trillions of Dollars to spend and years to spend it. (They’re probably underestimating the costs by magnitudes).
So that doesn’t really address the concept I’m questioning. You’re leaning hard into the fact the computer is using numbers in place of words but I’m saying why is that any different than assigning native language to a book written in a foreign language? The vernacular, language, formula or code that is being used to formulate a thought shouldn’t delineate if something was a legitimate thought.
I think the gap between our reasoning is a perfect example of why I think FUTURE models (wanna be real clear this is entirely hypothetical assumption that LLMs will continue improving.)
What I mean is, you can give 100 people the same problem and come out with 100 different cognitive pathways being used to come to a right or wrong solution.
When I was learning to play the trumpet in middle school and later learned the guitar and drums, I was told I did not play instruments like most musicians. Use that term super fuckin loosely, I am very bad lol but the reason was because I do not have an ear for music, I can’t listen and tell you something is in tune or out of tune by hearing a song played, but I could tune the instrument just fine if I have an in tune note played for me to match. My instructor explained that I was someone who read music the way others read but instead of words I read the notes as numbers. Especially when I got older when I learned the guitar. I knew how to read music at that point but to this day I can’t learn a new song unless I read the guitar tabs which are literal numbers on a guitar fretboard instead of a actual scale.
I know I’m making huge leaps here and I’m not really trying to prove any point. I just feel strongly that at our most basic core, a human’s understanding of their existence is derived from “I think. Therefore I am.” Which in itself is nothing more than an electrochemical reaction between neurons that either release something or receive something. We are nothing more than a series of plc commands on a cnc machine. No matter how advanced we are capable of being, we are nothing but a complex series of on and off switches that theoretically could be emulated into operating on an infinate string of commands spelled out by 1’s and 0’s.
Im sorry, my brother prolly got me way too much weed for Xmas.
emergent behavior doesn’t really exist in certain model archetypes
Hey, would you have a reference for this? I’d love to read it. Does it apply to deep neural nets? And/or recurrent NNs?
I’d say that difference between nature boiling down to maths and LLMs boiling down to maths is that in LLMs it’s not the knowledge itself that is abstracted, it’s language. This makes it both more believable to us humans, because we’re wired to use language, and less suitable to actually achieve something, because it’s just language all the way down.
Would be nice if it gets us something in the long run, but I wouldn’t keep my hopes up
I’m super stoked now to follow this and to also follow the progress being made mapping the neurological pathways of the human brain. Wanna say i saw an article on lemmy recently where the mapped the entire network of neurons in either an insect or a mouse, I can’t remember. So I’m guna assume like 3-5 years until we can map out human brains and know exactly what is firing off which brain cells as someone is doing puzzles in real time.
I think it would be so crazy cool if we get to a pint where the understanding of our cognitive processes is so detailed that scientists are left with nothing but faith as their only way of defining the difference between a computer processing information and a person. Obviously the subsequent dark ages that follow will suck after all people of science snap and revert into becoming idiot priests. But that’s a risk I’m willing to take. 🤣🤣🍻
This is a fun read
Hicks, M.T., Humphries, J. & Slater, J. ChatGPT is bullshit. Ethics Inf Technol 26, 38 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10676-024-09775-5
