Because they are at a child level of development. Give it a few years. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_development_stages
I don't think anthropomorphizing ML models is very useful
Indeed, they don't like that.
Why Are LLMs So Gullible?
11–20 of 107 posts
Re: Why Are LLMs So Gullible?
#12Earlier quoted context omitted.
> they don't understand the question and respond with abstract reasoning. Yet. What makes you think LLM's as a class of technology will ever have the capacity to really do this. I thought that no matter how big a model gets it's never actually 'thinking'. All those prompts like 'think step by step' are just helpers along the way, because as you say it's 'really advanced autocomplete'
It depends what exactly you mean by "LLM". But an ANN is effectively a function approximator. If you made one big enough to very closely approximate the entire quantum state of a person interacting with an environment, would you still declare that nothing it could do is "thinking"?
This is silly, that's like talking about building a fusion reactor modeled after the sun. It is easy to propose something like that, but we always seem to be 10 years away from realizing it. In fact it could be easier to solve the fusion problem than trying to build a machine/software that closely approximates a human brain as you suggest.
Yes it would be wonderful if sci-fi was real, but we need to deal in what is possible in reality.
Re: Why Are LLMs So Gullible?
#13because the output isn't the result of cognitive reasoning, it's the result of a statistical optimization problem where the goal is maximum acceptance by the user. these tools and approaches are neither gullible nor not-gullble.
[deleted]
Re: Why Are LLMs So Gullible?
#14Because they are at a child level of development. Give it a few years. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_development_stages
I don't think anthropomorphizing ML models is very useful
Comparing the intelligence of machine learning models that are designed to emulate human cognition and logical, to a well understood stage of human cognition and logic, is completely logical, and completely aligned with the purpose of the ML model's existence.
Re: Why Are LLMs So Gullible?
#15because the output isn't the result of cognitive reasoning, it's the result of a statistical optimization problem where the goal is maximum acceptance by the user. these tools and approaches are neither gullible nor not-gullble.
Can you quantify the difference between cognitive reasoning and statistical optimization?
Re: Why Are LLMs So Gullible?
#16because the output isn't the result of cognitive reasoning, it's the result of a statistical optimization problem where the goal is maximum acceptance by the user. these tools and approaches are neither gullible nor not-gullble.
Thank you for this. I think it's important that technical folks in particular not anthropomorphize LLMs, and help less technical people understand how they work and that they lack consciousness, emotions, and understanding.
Re: Why Are LLMs So Gullible?
#17Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think anthropomorphizing ML models is very useful
Comparing the intelligence of machine learning models that are designed to emulate human cognition and logical, to a well understood stage of human cognition and logic, is completely logical, and completely aligned with the purpose of the ML model's existence.
LLMs aren't designed to emulate human cognition, they are a statistical model designed to predict the next word in a sentence. It happens that they seem to exhibit some similarities to human cognition as a side effect, but that does not mean they are on some developmental path to a "full human" like a child. Again it is silly to try and compare the two.
Re: Why Are LLMs So Gullible?
#18because the output isn't the result of cognitive reasoning, it's the result of a statistical optimization problem where the goal is maximum acceptance by the user. these tools and approaches are neither gullible nor not-gullble.
Thank you for this. I think it's important that technical folks in particular not anthropomorphize LLMs, and help less technical people understand how they work and that they lack consciousness, emotions, and understanding.
You mean these highly anthropomorphised programs? It’s important that technical people don’t anthropomorphise them?
I agree but the creators of all the main LLMs have already crossed the line by a long way. E.g. It’s deeply troubling that it’s acceptable that LLMs deliver inline apologies.
Re: Why Are LLMs So Gullible?
#19because the output isn't the result of cognitive reasoning, it's the result of a statistical optimization problem where the goal is maximum acceptance by the user. these tools and approaches are neither gullible nor not-gullble.
Can you quantify the difference between cognitive reasoning and statistical optimization?
Statistical optimization is a known process; one where we understand every step, and can therefore instruct machines on how to perform it. Cognitive reasoning is still today not understood (in the Von Neumann sense) by anyone.
Re: Why Are LLMs So Gullible?
#20because the output isn't the result of cognitive reasoning, it's the result of a statistical optimization problem where the goal is maximum acceptance by the user. these tools and approaches are neither gullible nor not-gullble.
> statistical optimization problem where the goal is maximum acceptance by the user
A brain could also be described like this, if you focus only on the text output.