Earlier quoted context omitted.
Evolution created intelligence without even being intelligent itself
How do you know that’s true?
Because evolution is random change + natural selection
Language models can explain neurons in language models
351–360 of 497 posts
Re: Language models can explain neurons in language models
#352Earlier quoted context omitted.
> that we're pretty damn close to recreating it Is that evident already or are we fitting the definition of intelligence without being aware?
If you spent any time with GPT-4 it should be evident.
While impressive GPT-4 isn't intelligent or close to intelligence. It's an impressive statistical model but doesn't have the ability to reason
Re: Language models can explain neurons in language models
#353LLMs are quickly going to be able to start explaining their own thought processes better than any human can explain their own. I wonder how many new words we will come up with to describe concepts (or "node-activating clusters of meaning") that the AI finds salient that we don't yet have a singular word for. Or, for that matter, how many of those concepts we will find meaningful at all. What will this teach us about…
I don't think we invent new words just for AI to explain its thought process to us better. AI may explain more elaborately in our language instead.
Re: Language models can explain neurons in language models
#354Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ah, if that's what you mean then there are plenty of intelligent systems out there. I've used Google search for decades and it's been able to answer questions better than humans ever could. Same for Google Maps, though arguably they're the same system at this point. My calculator is far more intelligent than any human I've met, at least when it comes to adding large numbers. My compiler can detect even the slightest…
No, what I meant was GPT-4 is more intelligent than most humans I interact with on a daily basis. In the fullest meaning of that word.
There are a lot of different ways to interpret the word intelligent, so let me rephrase:
When you say "intelligent", what do you mean exactly?
What might help is describing what specific interactions give you the impression that GPT-4 is intelligent?
Re: Language models can explain neurons in language models
#355Earlier quoted context omitted.
"LLMs are quickly going to be able to start explaining their own thought processes better than any human can explain their own." There is no "their" and there is no "thought process" . There is something that produces text that appears to humans like there is something like thought going on (cf the Eliza Effect), but we must be wary of this anthropomorphising language. There is no self reflection, but if you ask an L…
The text output of a llm is the thought process. In this context the main difference between humans and llms, is that llms can’t have internalized thoughts. There are of course other differences to, like the fact that humans have a wider gamut of input: visuals, sound, input from other bodily functions. And the fact that we have live training.
It's not clear whether or not LLMs have internal thoughts -- each token generation could absolutely have a ton of thought-like modelling in the hidden layers of the network.
What is known is that these internal thoughts get erased each time a new token is generated. That is, it's starting from scratch from the contents of the text each time it generates a word. But you could postulate that similar prompt text leads to similar "thoughts" and/or navigation of the concept web, and therefore the thoughts are continuous in a sense.
Re: Language models can explain neurons in language models
#356Of note: "... our technique works poorly for larger models, possibly because later layers are harder to explain." And even for GPT-2, which is what they used for the paper: "... the vast majority of our explanations score poorly ..." Which is to say, we still have no clue as to what's going on inside GPT-4 or even GPT-3, which I think is the question many want an answer to. This may be the first step towards that, bu…
Funny that we never quite understood how intelligence worked and yet it appears that we're pretty damn close to recreating it - still without knowing how it works. I wonder how often this happens in the universe...
No matter what it is probably easier to inspect a language model while it works, than the language module of a human while he speaks.
Re: Language models can explain neurons in language models
#357Re: Language models can explain neurons in language models
#358Earlier quoted context omitted.
that is absolutely fascinating and also makes me extremely uncomfortable
This is why I suggest that curious individuals try a hallucinogen at least once*. It really makes the fragility of our perception, and how it’s held up mostly by itself, very apparent. * in a safe setting with support, of course.
I can confirm lucid dreaming does the same.
Re: Language models can explain neurons in language models
#359Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It might have been an interesting argument 20 years ago. It’s just silly now. Is it? These networks are capable of copying something , yes. Do we have a good understanding of what that is? Not really, no. At least I don’t. I’m sure lots of people have a much better understanding than I do, but I think its hard to know exactly whats going on. People dismiss the stochastic parrot argument because of how impressive bi…
That person's argument is borderline insane to me - a severe lack of knowing what is unknown, a reverence of current best-models (regards modern science, including neurology - yet, open minded investigations beyond are also a requisite here.) And the pompousness is what truly boggles my mind ("Its silly to believe this , now .) A look in the mirror would suffice to say the least... Anyway, thank you for a great answe…
Thank you, appreciate the compliment.
And yeah, are definitely a lot of open questions related to all of this. Love how its brought so many deep questions into focus.
Re: Language models can explain neurons in language models
#360Earlier quoted context omitted.
i always thought that the concept of free will didnt bother me. but it turns out i just didn’t understand what it implied. oh dear. if it turns out that true, it’s truly amazing how well we convince ourselves that we’re in control. but if our brain controls our actions and not our consciousness, then what is the purpose of consciousness?
Perhaps there is no purpose to consciousness. Perhaps it's a phenomenon that somehow arises independently ex nihilo from sufficiently complex systems, only ever able to observe, unable to act. Weird to think about.
Can conscious experience ever arise from matter? Even if the said matter is neural networks? This seems utterly nonsensical to me.