Ask HN: What is the current state of "logical" AI? • Hacker News Board

Re: Ask HN: What is the current state of "logical" AI?

#51

Post by inimino » Wed, Dec 27, 2023, 5:21 AM UTC

mewpmewp2 wrote: post #30

inimino wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Evolution operates on genes, which do not encode synaptic connections for one thing. The analogy you're making here is so stretched it's hard to begin to say what's wrong with it. Backpropagation and natural selection are about as different as two things can be. About the only thing you can say they have in common is that both can be modeled as optimization processes. What's the difference between a star and a bonfir…

I mean the point was about LLMs not truly being problem solvers because they were trained to do so as opposed to having been evolved through evolution. I'm looking for what the difference is specifically within that dimension. Biological pigeons had their own process of evolution how they reached to have the type of neural networks and systems in themselves that gave them the ability to count - but not in all context…

No, the point was that LLMs are not good at problem solving because they are not good at problem solving, not because they were not evolved. We don't understand how we or animals solve problems, which is why we haven't yet succeeded in replicating that in AI. You're the one bringing in these incredibly strained analogies, because you want GPT 4 to be more than it is or something, I'm not sure.

Re: Ask HN: What is the current state of "logical" AI?

#52

Post by mtlb » Wed, Dec 27, 2023, 8:16 AM UTC

mewpmewp2 wrote: post #49

mtlb wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The biological neural structures that encode behavior are “trained” through evolution, but even the most advanced animals rely mostly on conditioned (= learned during lifetime) reflexes, and not on the ones “hardcoded” evolutionary. Certainly not much evolutionary “training” in the human brain has happened in the last 3000 years, yet advancement in our understanding of the world has been plentiful. But human thinking…

The claim about those models being "statistical". Why wouldn't you consider human brain to be statistical or animal's brains as "statistical"? Because in the end human brains as well as any brains it seems they could be thought of statistical results from long periods of training and producing output from input. Where am I wrong? I assume by statistical you mean that the ending result of state of neurons can be repre…

You are not wrong, but too abstract. Saying that brain is statistical and therefore can be represented with statistical model such as artificial neural net is like saying that brain is computational and therefore can be represented with a Turing-complete system, or that brain is physical and can be represented via physical simulation, etc.

Re: Ask HN: What is the current state of "logical" AI?

#53

Post by OhNoNotAgain_99 » Wed, Dec 27, 2023, 9:11 AM UTC

nicklecompte wrote: post #16

AI is not even close to having true logical reasoning, that's probably decades away. The issue is that cognitive scientists are clueless. Scientists have a good model for associative reasoning , which is the basis of modern neural networks, but we don't have a clue how abstract reasoning actually works. All birds and mammals have advanced abstract reasoning and are far more intelligent than GPT-4: - birds and mammals…

[dead]

Re: Ask HN: What is the current state of "logical" AI?

#54

Post by Nevermark » Sat, Dec 30, 2023, 9:08 PM UTC

mtlb wrote: post #45

Nevermark wrote: post #38

Something that would massively improve language models ability to reason is whiteboarding. Being trained to make, review, improve, and add to notes. While maintaining a consistent goal. I am unaware of anyone who can reason to any serious depth without a paper, computational, or actual version of a whiteboard. This doesn’t seem like a particularly challenging thing to add to current shallow (but now quite wide) reaso…

>Imagine how fast you could think if you had a mentally stable whiteboard that you could perceive as clearly as you can see, and update as fast as you can think the changes. Thinking about what I am going to draw or write on the whiteboard takes the bulk of time, not the act of drawing or writing. The "update as fast as you can think" part will likely be achieved soon with neural interface, yet it's hard to imagine t…

Our minds do operates internally much faster than our mouths or fingers.

The speed we go from thought to thought internally is lighting, compared to how fast we operate when we have to update the subjects of these thoughts on pen and paper. Or explain every step of our thinking, as we make it, to someone else verbally.

Our brain is far more densly connected and faster operating than brain signals sent to direct a physical arm and hand, pen, paper, back through the visual system.

Being able to adjust any stable visualization in the mind by just visualizing the change to instant effect, removes mental friction and increases internal bandwidth.

Any removal of friction or increased bandwidth to thinking is profound.

Slowed more careful thinking, and slower collaborative thinking, are often helpful. But being slowed down by limitations is never a help.