7 ms·

Yeah, it has been clear for a long time that there is reasoning and mental modeling going on here. The other option is that you do understand those words the s

by sneak 18d ago

Yeah, it has been clear for a long time that there is reasoning and mental modeling going on here. The other option is that you do understand those words the same way, and the people making these (now nonsensical) anti-AI claims simply aren’t talking about the same programs/models we are. Their idea of SOTA is when chatgpt.com launched. If you took a point sample pre-Opus, and didn’t write a good prompt, of course you would think all AI programming was worthless slop.

deleted 18d ago
[deleted]
negura 18d ago
Maybe get yourself checked for chatbot psychosis. I am using current models productively, every day, and have 0 (and I mean precisely, literally 0) issue with calling it a stochastic parrot, one which lacks any kind of mentality whatsoever. There is not a shred of doubt in my mind that this is purely a statistical model, generating sequences of words, that happen to make sense in our actual mentality.
- sneak 16d ago
  What about my proposed psychosis would make the tests go green when it implements something complex in one shot? In any case, thanks for validating my previous assumption that people like this still exist even in the age of Opus/Fable.
  - negura 16d ago
    > What about my proposed psychosis would make the tests go green when it implements something complex in one shot? Nothing. That's why it's a psychosis. It has nothing to do with the reality of how language models generate words without mental reasoning.
    - sneak 15d ago
      The “something complex” is critical here - I mean specifically an implementation that requires an advanced and reasoned mental model to write. How does it oneshot those and pass comprehensive tests if it isn’t doing advanced reasoning?
      - negura 15d ago
        Because it's a statistical model of the words used in similar problem domains.
weego 17d ago
it has been clear for a long time that there is reasoning and mental modeling going on here There is not. No one from these products is even claiming that's the case and they're so desperate to make the next big claim to re-ignite investment they'd be shouting it from every rooftop. It's just breaking out all the reasonable probabilities around what it's been tasked with and structuring them in a way that is designed to actively look human, and then feed it back to itself. Fundamentally that's the easiest way to iterate new features when the underlying architecture of LLMs is largely "fixed" right now. The fact it is output in a way that appears to reason through each is just a technical decision that creates an illusion of reasoning.
- gjm11 17d ago
  What, as precisely as you can say, is the difference between an illusion of reasoning and reasoning? (I am not claiming that there is none. But I personally would define "reasoning" in terms of its structure and its results, and it looks to me as if the best LLMs' "illusion of reasoning" has enough similarities in structure and results to much human reasoning that I don't see why we shouldn't also call it reasoning; if your opinion differs then I'm curious about where the disagreements lie. E.g., do we have different beliefs about what sort of thing LLMs' schmeasoning is able to accomplish, or does your notion of "reasoning" specifically require that it be done by humans, or what?)

by sneak 18d ago

deleted 18d ago

[deleted]

negura 18d ago

Maybe get yourself checked for chatbot psychosis. I am using current models productively, every day, and have 0 (and I mean precisely, literally 0) issue with calling it a stochastic parrot, one which lacks any kind of mentality whatsoever. There is not a shred of doubt in my mind that this is purely a statistical model, generating sequences of words, that happen to make sense in our actual mentality.

sneak 16d ago
What about my proposed psychosis would make the tests go green when it implements something complex in one shot? In any case, thanks for validating my previous assumption that people like this still exist even in the age of Opus/Fable.
- negura 16d ago
  > What about my proposed psychosis would make the tests go green when it implements something complex in one shot? Nothing. That's why it's a psychosis. It has nothing to do with the reality of how language models generate words without mental reasoning.
  - sneak 15d ago
    The “something complex” is critical here - I mean specifically an implementation that requires an advanced and reasoned mental model to write. How does it oneshot those and pass comprehensive tests if it isn’t doing advanced reasoning?
    - negura 15d ago
      Because it's a statistical model of the words used in similar problem domains.

weego 17d ago

it has been clear for a long time that there is reasoning and mental modeling going on here There is not. No one from these products is even claiming that's the case and they're so desperate to make the next big claim to re-ignite investment they'd be shouting it from every rooftop. It's just breaking out all the reasonable probabilities around what it's been tasked with and structuring them in a way that is designed to actively look human, and then feed it back to itself. Fundamentally that's the easiest way to iterate new features when the underlying architecture of LLMs is largely "fixed" right now. The fact it is output in a way that appears to reason through each is just a technical decision that creates an illusion of reasoning.

gjm11 17d ago
What, as precisely as you can say, is the difference between an illusion of reasoning and reasoning? (I am not claiming that there is none. But I personally would define "reasoning" in terms of its structure and its results, and it looks to me as if the best LLMs' "illusion of reasoning" has enough similarities in structure and results to much human reasoning that I don't see why we shouldn't also call it reasoning; if your opinion differs then I'm curious about where the disagreements lie. E.g., do we have different beliefs about what sort of thing LLMs' schmeasoning is able to accomplish, or does your notion of "reasoning" specifically require that it be done by humans, or what?)