91–100 of 136 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Our thinking is also based only on events that occurred previously in time. We don’t use events in the future.
Is this a certainty? I thought it was an open question whether quantum effects are at play in the brain, and those have a counterintuitive relationship with time (to vastly dumb things down in a way my grug mind can comprehend).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's trivial to demonstrate that LLMs are pattern matching rather than reasoning. A good way is to provide modified riddles-that-aren't. As an example: > Prompt: A man working at some white collar job gets an interview scheduled with an MBA candidate. The man says "I can't interview this candidate, he's my son." How is this possible? > ChatGPT: Because the interviewer is the candidate’s mother. (The riddle plays on t…
> It's trivial to demonstrate that LLMs are pattern matching rather than reasoning. Again, this is just asserting the premise that reasoning cannot include pattern matching, but this has never been justified. What is your definition for "reasoning"? > This is clearly pattern matching and overfitting to the "doctor riddle" and a good demonstration of how there's no actual reasoning going on. Not really, no. "Bad reaso…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well there’s no evidence of this that I’ve seen. If so, then maybe that is what is the blocker for AGI.
I think it's more that there isn't yet evidence against it. In other words, we're not sure or not if the brain has some kind of special sauce that doesn't just reduce to linear algebra.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
People make the same sort of mistakes.
Please explain how this is relevant to the topic at hand. Thanks!
Ask someone who has made such a mistake to think a little more on it, and they’ll notice their error. Ask a reasoning model to do literally the same thing, to “think” on it, and it will also notice its error.
If you’re still insist that AI are not reasoning here, then neither are people.
Can someone explain to me why a new LLMs ability to solve highly publicized puzzles is not "just" (sorry) it having access to the blog posts talking about those puzzles? It's fine, that's what I would do to solve them, but it doesn't obviously and immediately make me confident in new reasoning capability w that suspicion floating around.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well there’s no evidence of this that I’ve seen. If so, then maybe that is what is the blocker for AGI.
I think it's more that there isn't yet evidence against it. In other words, we're not sure or not if the brain has some kind of special sauce that doesn't just reduce to linear algebra.
We don't? AFAIK we have no proof of anyone being able to see into the future. Now maybe there are other manifestations of this, but I know of no test today that even hints at it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Our thinking is also based only on events that occurred previously in time. We don’t use events in the future.
This is unhelpfully obtuse
It's really a super simple concept -- maybe it's so simple that it seems obtuse.
I've been testing LLMs on Sokoban-like puzzles (in the style of ARC-AGI-3) and they are completely awful at them. It really highlights how poor their memory is. They can't remember abstract concepts or rules between steps, even if they discover them themselves. They can only be presented with lossy text descriptions of such things which they have to re-read and re-interpret at every step. LLMs are completely helpless…
Try to get your LLM of choice to find its way out of a labyrinth that you describe in text form. It's absolutely awful even with the simplest mazes. I'm not sure the problem here is memory, though? I think it has to do with spatial reasoning. I'd be willing to bet every company right now is working on spatial reasoning (at least up to 3D) and as soon as that is working, a huge amount of pieces will fall into place.
Text is too lossy and inefficient. The models need to be able to internally store and retrieve a more compact, abstract, non-verbal representation of facts and procedures.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is no source and arguing this is dumb because no one knows what reasoning or understanding is. No one. So all we have is "Does it swim like a duck, look like a duck, quack like a duck?"
I’m sympathetic to your point, but this isn’t quite fair. The field of psychology does exist.