People keep saying this, but I’m not convinced our own brains are doing anything more.
Let the haters hate.
Despite the welcome growth of atheism, almost all humans at one level or another cling to the idea that our monkey brains are filled with some magic miraculous light that couldn’t possibly be replicated. The reality is that some of us only have glimmers of sapience, and many not even that. Most humans, most of the time, are mindless zombies following a script, whether due to individual capacity, or a civilization that largely doesn’t reward metacognition or pondering the questions that matter, as that doesn’t immediately feed individual productivity or make anyone materially wealthier, that maze doesn’t lead to any yummy cheese for us.
AI development isn’t finally progressing quickly and making people uncomfortable with its capability because it’s catching up to our supposedly transcendental superbrains (that en masse spent hundreds of thousands of years wandering around in the dirt before it finally occurred to any of them that we could grow food seasonally in one place). It’s making a lot of humans uncomfortable because it’s demonstrating that there isn’t a whole hell of a lot to catch up to, especially for an average human.
There’s a reason pretty much everyone immediately discarded the Turing Test and basically called it a bullshit metric after elevating it for decades as a major benchmark in the development of AI systems… The moment a technology and design that could readily pass it became available. That’s the blind hubris of man on grand display.
of course somebody prompted up a LessWrong-specific chatbot
Banned for using the word metacognition seriously.
see I was just gonna go for “promptfondlin” but I’m glad I hesitated cause this is my new favorite ban reason
I used to do this and it helped my mental state a lot. LSD refresh every 6-12 months.
gasbag with occasional live one, the most tragic form of bad poster
tell me more about the AI haters who work in AI research at Apple
I was referring to the downvotes of the comment I replied to.
I wonder if any of the people about to downvote your comments are the weird non-sapient humans who work exactly like LLMs you seem to think exist, or maybe your posts are just inane promptfondling horseshit we’ve seen before
More eye-rolling contempt than hatred, tbh.
thinking is so easy to model when you don’t do it and assume nobody else does either
love these guys who clearly didn’t make it all the way to the end of the 250-word article
deleted by creator
meant for the stubsack?
I meant it for the stubsack, didn’t realise
Did someone not know this like, pretty much from day one?
Not the idiot executives that blew all their budget on AI and made up for it with mass layoffs - the people interested in it. Was that not clear that there was no “reasoning” going on?
there’s a lot of people (especially here, but not only here) who have had the insight to see this being the case, but there’s also been a lot of boosters and promptfondlers (ie. people with a vested interest) putting out claims that their precious word vomit machines are actually thinking
so while this may confirm a known doubt, rigorous scientific testing (and disproving) of the claims is nonetheless a good thing
No they do not im afraid, hell I didnt even know that even ELIZA caused people to think it could reason (and this worried the creator) until a few years ago.
Well, two responses I have seen to the claim that LLMs are not reasoning are:
- we are all just stochastic parrots lmao
- maybe intelligence is an emergent ability that will show up eventually (disregard the inability to falsify this and the categorical nonsense that is our definition of “emergent”).
So I think this research is useful as a response to these, although I think “fuck off, promptfondler” is pretty good too.
“Language is a virus from outer space”
I thought it came from Babylonian writing that recoded the brains and planted the languages.
Well are we not stochastic parrots then? Isn’t this a philosophical, rhetorical and equally unfalsifiable question to answer also?
No, there’s an actual paper where that term originated that goes into great deal explaining what it means and what it applies to. It answers those questions and addresses potential objections people might respond with.
There’s no need for–and, frankly, nothing interesting about–“but, what is truth, really?” vibes-based takes on the term.
fuck off, promptfondler
Hark! I hear the wanker roar.
no
A lot of people still don’t, from what I can gather from some of the comments on “AI” topics. Especially the ones that skew the other way with its “AI” hysteria is often an invite from people who know fuck all about how the tech works. “Nudifier” or otherwise generative images or explicit chats with bots that portray real or underage people being the most common topics that attract emotionally loaded but highly uninformed demands and outrage. Frankly, the whole “AI” topic in the media is so massively overblown on both fronts, but I guess it is good for traffic and nuance is dead anyway.
Indeed, although every one of us who have seen a tech hype train once or twice expected nothing less.
PDAs? Quantum computing. Touch screens. Siri. Cortana. Micropayments. Apps. Synergy of desktop and mobile.
From the outset this went from “hey that’s kind of neat” to quite possibly toppling some giants of tech in a flash. Now all we have to do is wait for the boards to give huge payouts to the pinheads that drove this shitwagon in here and we can get back to doing cool things without some imaginary fantasy stapled on to it at the explicit instruction of marketing and channel sales.
Xml also used to be a tech hype for a bit.
And i still remember how media outlets hyped up second life, forgot about it and a few months later discovered it again and more hype started. It was fun.
Yes! Exactly. Good example.
and then spent the entire Metaverse hype pretending Second Life didn’t exist
Lot easier to do hype when you pretend the previous iterations didn’t exist. (and still do, and actually have more content).
./^ L E G S ^\.
this reminds me of some of the more cursed things I know from that hype era
(see this for some others)
Sarvega, Inc., the leading provider of high-performance XML networking solutions, today announced the Sarvega XML Context™ Router, the first product to enable loosely coupled multi-point XML Web Services across wide area networks (WANs). The Sarvega XML Context Router is the first XML appliance to route XML content at wire speed based on deep content inspection, supporting publish-subscribe (pub-sub) models while simultaneously providing secure and reliable delivery guarantees.
it’s fucking delicious how thick the buzzwords are for an incredibly simple device:
- it parses XPath quickly (for 2004 (and honestly I never knew XPath and XQuery were a bottleneck… maybe this XML thing isn’t working out))
- it decides which web app gets what traffic, but only if the web app speaks XML, for some reason
- it implements an event queue, maybe?
- it’s probably a thin proprietary layer with a Cisco-esque management CLI built on appropriated open source software, all running on a BSD but in a shiny rackmount case
- the executive class at the time really had rediscovered cocaine, and that’s why we were all forced to put up with this bullshit
- this shit still exists but it does the same thing with a semi-proprietary YAML and too much JSON as this thing does with XML, and now it’s in the cloud, cause the executive class never undiscovered cocaine
similarly in that age: CORBA
and now of course instead of people handcrafting xml documents by string-cating angle brackets and tags together in bad php files, we have people manually dash-cating yaml together in bad jinja and go template files! progress!
Touch screens?
Yeah a huge thing at one point. Anyone use a laptop with a tochscreen?
The trackpad and trackpoint of my aging linux laptop stop working if the thing gets its lid shut. The touchscreen continues to work just fine, however. It turns out that while two stupid things can’t make a good thing, they can sometimes cancel each other out.
A handy benefit no doubt, but not quite the earth-shaking revolution the touchscreen hype-train promised at the time.
Everyday, big thing in schools.
Of course, of course. At the time though, it was expected that this would change the face of computing - no more keyboards! No more mice! No, this is more like Star Trek where you glance down at some geometric assemblage of colored shapes and tap several in random succession to immediately bring up the data you were looking for.
That, uh, did not happen.
Isn’t OpenAI saying that o1 has reasoning as a specific selling point?
they do say that, yes. it’s as bullshit as all the other claims they’ve been making
Which is my point, and forgive me, but I believe is the point of the research publication.
They say a lot of stuff.
My best guess is it generates several possible replies and then does some sort of token match to determine which one may potentially be the most accurate. Not sure if I’d call that “reasoning” but I guess it could potentially improve results in some cases. With OpenAI not being so open it is hard to tell though. They’ve been overpromising a lot already so it may as well be just complete bullshit.
My best guess is it generates several possible replies and then does some sort of token match to determine which one may potentially be the most accurate.
Didn’t the previous models already do this?
No idea. I’m not actually using any OpenAI products.
We suspect this research is likely part of why Apple pulled out of the recent OpenAI funding round at the last minute.
Perhaps the AI bros “think” by guessing the next word and hoping it’s convincing. They certainly argue like it.
🔥
Perhaps the AI bros “think” by guessing the next word and hoping it’s convincing
Perhaps? Isn’t that the definition of LLMs?
Edit: oh, i just realized it’s not talking about the LLMs, but about their apologists
Oh what a sweet, sweet tune to end a Sunday to
When you ask an LLM a reasoning question. You’re not expecting it to think for you, you’re expecting that it has crawled multiple people asking semantically the same question and getting semantically the same answer, from other people, that are now encoded in its vectors.
That’s why you can ask it. because it encodes semantics.
guy who totally gets what these words mean: “an llm simply encodes the semantics into the vectors”
all you gotta do is, you know, ground the symbols, and as long as you’re writing enough Lisp that should be sufficient for GAI
also why do we need getaddrinfo? the promptfans will always readily tell you who they are
both your comments made my eye twitch
like what’d happen if bob fucked up the symbols in a pentacle
so… a stochastic parrot?
thank you for bravely rushing in and providing yet another counterexample to the “but nobody’s actually stupid enough to think they’re anything more than statistical language generators” talking point
Paraphrasing Neil Gaiman, LLMs don’t give you information; they give you information shaped sentences.
They don’t encode semantics. They encode the statistical likelihood that each token will follow a given sequence of tokens.
It’s worth pointing out that it does happen to reconstruct information remarkably well considering it’s just likelihood. They’re pretty useful tools like any other, it’s funny ofc to watch silicon valley stumble all over each other chasing the next smartphone.
“remarkably well” as long as the remark is “this is still garbage!”
Rooting around for that Luke Skywalker “every single word in that sentence was wrong” GIF…
because it encodes semantics.
if it really did so, performance wouldn’t swing up or down when you change syntactic or symbolic elements of problems. the only information encoded is language-statistical
did you ask a LLM for a post to make here? that might explain this mess of a comment
