I think AI is neat.

  • archomrade [he/him]@midwest.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    9 months ago

    I find this line of thinking tedious.

    Even if LLM’s can’t be said to have ‘true understanding’ (however you’re choosing to define it), there is very little to suggest they should be able to understand predict the correct response to a particular context, abstract meaning, and intent with what primitive tools they were built with.

    If there’s some as-yet uncrossed threshold to a bare-minimum ‘understanding’, it’s because we simply don’t have the language to describe what that threshold is or know when it has been crossed. If the assumption is that ‘understanding’ cannot be a quality granted to a transformer-based model -or even a quality granted to computers generally- then we need some other word to describe what LLM’s are doing, because ‘predicting the next-best word’ is an insufficient description for what would otherwise be a slight-of-hand trick.

    There’s no doubt that there’s a lot of exaggerated hype around these models and LLM companies, but some of these advancements published in 2022 surprised a lot of people in the field, and their significance shouldn’t be slept on.

    Certainly don’t trust the billion-dollar companies hawking their wares, but don’t ignore the technology they’re building, either.

    • Traister101@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      17
      ·
      9 months ago

      You are best off thinking of LLMs as highly advanced auto correct. They don’t know what words mean. When they output a response to your question the only process that occurred was “which words are most likely to come next”.

    • usualsuspect191@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      9 months ago

      Even if LLM’s can’t be said to have ‘true understanding’ (however you’re choosing to define it), there is very little to suggest they should be able to understand predict the correct response to a particular context, abstract meaning, and intent with what primitive tools they were built with.

      Did you mean “shouldn’t”? Otherwise I’m very confused by your response

      • archomrade [he/him]@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        9 months ago

        No, i mean ‘should’, as in:

        There’s no reason to expect a program that calculates the probability of the next most likely word in a sentence should be able to do anything more than string together an incoherent sentence, let alone correctly answer even an arbitrary question

        It’s like using a description for how covalent bonds are formed as an explanation for how it is you know when you need to take a shit.