Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

How AI knows things no one told it

scientificamerican.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 140 posts

Re: How AI knows things no one told it

#31

Post by famouswaffles »

chpatrick wrote: post #24
kgeist wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you invent/introduce made up concepts and rules on the spot ("let shmerple be ..."), which can't possibly be found in its training data, then, from my experience, when queried, LLMs are able to correctly reason most of the time... So it's not just Markov chains regurgitating sentences verbatim from their dataset. Even if this kind of intelligence is just statistics, does it really matter? If it quacks like a duck,…

Is it wrong to anthromorphize if it quacks like a human?

Not only is it not wrong, it's actually in our best interests to do so past a certain level of agency, embodiment and unsupervised tool control.

If the machine acts like it has emotions, runs forever(this kind of agency is already possible to implement though expensive) and can use tools, then treat it like it doesn't have emotions at your own peril. When the machine can "hit you back" (not necessarily physically of course), you'll learn manners pretty quickly. You can see glimpses of this with bing.

Re: How AI knows things no one told it

#32

Post by gfody »

mabbo wrote: post #29

I think it's a bit of hubris to demand we explain how LLMs can be as intelligent as they are when we barely understand how the ball of meat inside our skulls can be either. We know that neural networks can simulate any function, given enough parameters. Maybe we've simply found the number of parameters needed to simulate the function of "human level intelligence". That should humble us, to know that there is some num…

> there is some number which we are no more complex than

I bet that number is 808017424794512875886459904961710757005754368000000000

Re: How AI knows things no one told it

#33

Post by sharemywin »

1000thVisitor wrote: post #28
throwaway22032 wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, it's bizarre. Are we not simply employing statistics when we deduce that yes, if we release our grip, the smartphone will fall to the floor? You wouldn't have to ever see a phone drop in order to know that, and neither would you have to study or know of the terminology of gravity. It comes from the statistical knowledge that all things fall when not blocked.

The key here is abstraction, not statistics. You have seen other items fall and are able to abstract this and then apply it to the phone.

1. Rule of probability: The concept of statistics is being used to predict outcomes based on previous observations or experiences, such as the likelihood of an object falling when released.

2. Rule of inherent knowledge: Some understanding or knowledge, like objects falling when not supported, can be known without explicit study or exposure to the specific terminology (e.g., gravity).

3. Rule of generalization: Observations or experiences with one type of object (e.g., a smartphone) can be generalized to other objects or situations, as long as they share similar characteristics (e.g., not being supported).

4. Rule of causality: There is an implied cause-and-effect relationship between an action (releasing the grip) and an outcome (the smartphone falling to the floor).

5. Rule of experiential learning: Knowledge can be gained through direct experiences, even if the specific terms or scientific concepts are not known.

Re: How AI knows things no one told it

#34

Post by version_five »

kgeist wrote: post #13
ggm wrote: post #4

Exceptionally unconvinced that it's more than statistics, and frankly unhappy that pop Sci media is being this uncritical of claims it's emergent intelligence.

If you invent/introduce made up concepts and rules on the spot ("let shmerple be ..."), which can't possibly be found in its training data, then, from my experience, when queried, LLMs are able to correctly reason most of the time... So it's not just Markov chains regurgitating sentences verbatim from their dataset. Even if this kind of intelligence is just statistics, does it really matter? If it quacks like a duck,…

> Maybe our own brains are nothing more than overrated statistical machines?

This is a tired assertion, easily disproved for current llms (read some of Lecun's stuff) and if some variation is going to be claimed, it needs to be an affirmative defence. "Maybe x is true" is a meaningless statement.

Re: How AI knows things no one told it

#35

Post by hammyhavoc »

mabbo wrote: post #29

I think it's a bit of hubris to demand we explain how LLMs can be as intelligent as they are when we barely understand how the ball of meat inside our skulls can be either. We know that neural networks can simulate any function, given enough parameters. Maybe we've simply found the number of parameters needed to simulate the function of "human level intelligence". That should humble us, to know that there is some num…

> Maybe we've simply found the number of parameters needed to simulate the function of "human level intelligence".

Have we? That seems like a huge reach.

Re: How AI knows things no one told it

#36

Post by hammyhavoc »

famouswaffles wrote: post #31
chpatrick wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is it wrong to anthromorphize if it quacks like a human?

Not only is it not wrong, it's actually in our best interests to do so past a certain level of agency, embodiment and unsupervised tool control. If the machine acts like it has emotions, runs forever(this kind of agency is already possible to implement though expensive) and can use tools, then treat it like it doesn't have emotions at your own peril. When the machine can "hit you back" (not necessarily physically of…

> You can see glimpses of this with bing.

Oh please. The human gives the verbose output meaning by projecting onto it. You're clearly letting your emotions run wild. It's a fucking LLM.

Re: How AI knows things no one told it

#37

Post by hackinthebochs »

ggm wrote: post #4

Exceptionally unconvinced that it's more than statistics, and frankly unhappy that pop Sci media is being this uncritical of claims it's emergent intelligence.

It would be nice if the naysayers could offer an argument in favor of it being "just statistics", or even explain what that even means. There is reason to believe these models are demonstrating the traits of understanding in some cases. I argue the point in some detail here: https://www.reddit.com/r/naturalism/comments/1236vzf/on_larg...

Re: How AI knows things no one told it

#38

Post by byyyy »

ggm wrote: post #4

Exceptionally unconvinced that it's more than statistics, and frankly unhappy that pop Sci media is being this uncritical of claims it's emergent intelligence.

The article isn't doing anything more then quoting experts in the field.

From the article:

“It is certainly much more than a stochastic parrot, and it certainly builds some representation of the world—although I do not think that it is quite like how humans build an internal world model,” says Yoshua Bengio, an AI researcher at the University of Montreal.

If you remain unconvinced then the only conclusion I can make is that your an expert yourself on a scale of even higher in eminence then Yoshua Bengio here. Also don't forget Geoffrey Hinton, the Father of the modern revolution of AI, you must be more of an expert than him.

Let's be real. These people are saying something along the lines that it's more then a stochastic parrot and we aren't sure what's going on. But you're saying it's absolutely nothing more than a parrot and your unhappy with with pop Sci media quoting experts who are just saying they don't know?

Are you saying pop Sci media should quote you? Because you absolutely know what's going on and that it's definitely nothing more than statistics? I'm asking a stupid question here because I don't think this is what you're saying. You're not stupid, you know that what these experts say have merit.

So my question for you is why do you remain so unconvinced in the face of experts and other intelligent people who clearly say no one understands? Your opinion here actually represents a large group of people who very violently deny/dismiss what even many experts are saying and I'm curious as to why?

Re: How AI knows things no one told it

#39

Post by HarHarVeryFunny »

ggm wrote: post #4

Exceptionally unconvinced that it's more than statistics, and frankly unhappy that pop Sci media is being this uncritical of claims it's emergent intelligence.

Of course it's just statistics, but so are we.

Define intelligence. Say you took a human brain and kept it alive in a mad scientist's pickle jar. Let's assume the brain's wired up so it can hear and speak, it's got an idiot savant's memory, and someone has just read it the internet.

What do you think the most impressive things are that the brain could do, that GPT-4 couldn't ?

Re: How AI knows things no one told it

#40

Post by the_optimist »

mabbo wrote: post #29

I think it's a bit of hubris to demand we explain how LLMs can be as intelligent as they are when we barely understand how the ball of meat inside our skulls can be either. We know that neural networks can simulate any function, given enough parameters. Maybe we've simply found the number of parameters needed to simulate the function of "human level intelligence". That should humble us, to know that there is some num…

What is the meaning of your philosophical approach? As in, what is the proposed consequence of such hubris or humility?
Post reply on HN