Email or username:

Password:

Forgot your password?
Top-level
Dr. Quadragon ❌

@marcan

> They aren't reasoning or "thinking"; what they're doing is just learning to imitate the behavior they're trained on. They can produce outputs that look novel, but in the end it all boils down to a combination of the inputs they were trained on

I am feeling extremely seen by this post. Sorry, I will just quietly retreat into my corner.

4 comments
Dr. Quadragon ❌

@marcan Seriously, though. How in the slightest does that differ from what we, humanimals, do?

All we do is also take the behaviours, pieces of information (a.k.a memes) as sensory input, memorize it, train on it, transforming raw input into experience (it's called learning), combine the inputs, compare them, transform, recurse on it, many-many times, and then produce some output, which we then call "reasoning". Or "art" if nobody seems to buy into it. Or "culture" as umbrella term.

Have you seen the "Everything is a remix" series? This is true to an uncomfortable degree for some.

I'm fine with it. Whatever. There's no golden pot at the end of the rainbow, because a rainbow is not a bow, but actually a circle, and we're looking at it the wrong way. Everything that exists, works somehow. We do too.

@marcan Seriously, though. How in the slightest does that differ from what we, humanimals, do?

All we do is also take the behaviours, pieces of information (a.k.a memes) as sensory input, memorize it, train on it, transforming raw input into experience (it's called learning), combine the inputs, compare them, transform, recurse on it, many-many times, and then produce some output, which we then call "reasoning". Or "art" if nobody seems to buy into it. Or "culture" as umbrella term.

Hector Martin

@drq Just look at the failure modes to understand how it's different. There's no higher reasoning with current AIs. No common sense, no ability to solve novel problems even when the solution is obvious.

Maybe we just need deeper networks, who knows. But we're definitely not there yet, not anywhere close.

Bornach

@marcan @drq
Some of ChatGPT's so-called "failure modes" remind me of similar failure modes in humans

ChatGPT arguing that a movie not yet released during its training cut-off period in 2022 means it hasn't been released in 2023, reminded me of exchanges I've had arguing politics on birdsite. They weren't interested in arriving at some agreed truth, but only in making an argument-winning tweet

Brain science already acknowledges this very human characteristic
nytimes.com/2011/06/15/arts/pe

@marcan @drq
Some of ChatGPT's so-called "failure modes" remind me of similar failure modes in humans

ChatGPT arguing that a movie not yet released during its training cut-off period in 2022 means it hasn't been released in 2023, reminded me of exchanges I've had arguing politics on birdsite. They weren't interested in arriving at some agreed truth, but only in making an argument-winning tweet

Everybody loves Gordo

@drq @marcan It's less about the "repeating it's training data" and more about the fundamentals. It's not really taught to reason. It's just predicting the probability of the next word based on all the previous words, so it's missing a lot of the circuitry we've got going on. It's really not an apples to apples comparison.

That being said, it's also the most advanced version of that sort of AI anyone's ever seen, and it's only going to get more advanced, and I...

Go Up