I’ve been saying this for about a year since seeing the Othello GPT research, but it’s nice to see more minds changing as the research builds up.

Edit: Because people aren’t actually reading and just commenting based on the headline, a relevant part of the article:

New research may have intimations of an answer. A theory developed by Sanjeev Arora of Princeton University and Anirudh Goyal, a research scientist at Google DeepMind, suggests that the largest of today’s LLMs are not stochastic parrots. The authors argue that as these models get bigger and are trained on more data, they improve on individual language-related abilities and also develop new ones by combining skills in a manner that hints at understanding — combinations that were unlikely to exist in the training data.

This theoretical approach, which provides a mathematically provable argument for how and why an LLM can develop so many abilities, has convinced experts like Hinton, and others. And when Arora and his team tested some of its predictions, they found that these models behaved almost exactly as expected. From all accounts, they’ve made a strong case that the largest LLMs are not just parroting what they’ve seen before.

“[They] cannot be just mimicking what has been seen in the training data,” said Sébastien Bubeck, a mathematician and computer scientist at Microsoft Research who was not part of the work. “That’s the basic insight.”

  • FaceDeer@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    17
    ·
    10 months ago

    No matter what you call it, an LLM will always produces the same output with the same input if it is at the same state.

    How do you know a human wouldn’t do the same? We lack the ability to perform the experiment.

    An LLM will never say “I don’t know” unless it’s been trained to say “I don’t know”

    Also a very human behaviour, in my experience.

    • TORFdot0@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      10 months ago

      How do you know a human wouldn’t do the same? We lack the ability to perform the experiment.

      I agree with you, I think its an interesting philosophical debate on whether we truly have free will, if we really have a level of understanding beyond LLMs do or if we are just a greatly more complex, biological version of an LLM. Like you said, we lack the ability to perform the experiment so I have to assume that our reactions are novel and spontaneous.

      • QuadratureSurfer@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        10 months ago

        Fun thought experiment:

        Let’s say we have a time machine and we can go back in time to a specific moment to observe how someone reacts to something.

        If that person reacts the same way every time, does that mean that by knowing what they would do, you have removed their free will?

        • TORFdot0@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          10 months ago

          If you could travel back in time and observe a person over and over again react the same way is it different from observing a video tape?

          Does traveling back in time guarantee that someone would react the same way in the same situation even?

          • QuadratureSurfer@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            10 months ago

            is it different from observing a video tape?

            I would think that it’s different, only because you have the potential to alter what could happen.

            Does traveling back in time guarantee that someone would react the same way in the same situation even?

            Maybe, maybe not, we’re entering the realm of Schrödinger’s cat as well as how time travel would actually work. Do we create some new branched timeline in travelling back? Do we enter an alternate universe entirely? Do we have a time machine where paradoxes are a problem? And the list can go on.

    • MonkderZweite@feddit.ch
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      10 months ago

      How do you know a human wouldn’t do the same?

      Because the human has “circuits” for coherrent thought and language was added later.