They are still big state-machines, unlike the human brain.
Certainly they are big state machines, but is there any proof that we are not?
Theory of Mind May Have Spontaneously Emerged in Large Language Models
11–20 of 321 posts
Re: Theory of Mind May Have Spontaneously Emerged in Large Language Models
#12This is intriguing. Could it be simply explained by introducing ToM (or ToM-like) training data? Since all DaVinci models are 175B parameters, the extra training or training data must be the reason for the improvement. Do we know how different DaVinci models are trained?
Re: Theory of Mind May Have Spontaneously Emerged in Large Language Models
#13My belief, based on experiences with domestic and wild animals is that there is nothing uniquely human about "theory of mind". It's a running gag in our household (where my wife runs a riding academy) that academics just published a paper showing that some animal (e.g. horse) has just been proven to have some cognitive capability that seems pretty obvious if you work with those animals. It's very hard to know what is…
I'm reminded of the early days of "AI" when that consisted of building chess engines, because chess is what "intelligent" people do. They quickly realized that they were solving the wrong problem, doing the thing that humans are bad at and computers are good at. In a sense language models appear to be doing the same thing again, one step down the scale. They're doing a human-specific thing, but missing whatever it is…
> I'm reminded of the early days of "AI" when that consisted of building chess engines, because chess is what "intelligent" people do. They quickly realized that they were solving the wrong problem, doing the thing that humans are bad at and computers are good at.
Is this really true? Because a lot of effort was spent on making computers as good at chess as human experts. It was considered a pretty big breakthrough when it happened and it definitely didn't happen early in the history of AI.
Re: Theory of Mind May Have Spontaneously Emerged in Large Language Models
#14My belief, based on experiences with domestic and wild animals is that there is nothing uniquely human about "theory of mind". It's a running gag in our household (where my wife runs a riding academy) that academics just published a paper showing that some animal (e.g. horse) has just been proven to have some cognitive capability that seems pretty obvious if you work with those animals. It's very hard to know what is…
I recall reading that pointing is something that only a few animals, including us, do and understand. If I get my cats' attention and point at something, they're more interested in the tip of my finger than the direction I'm pointing at. Now, my cats will occasionally meow to get my attention and then walk over to where the problem is - an empty food dish, an empty water bowl, the bed that they expect us to be in bec…
Your post is a perfect demonstration of what Frans de Waal gets at in "Are We Smart Enough to Know How Smart Are?"
Re: Theory of Mind May Have Spontaneously Emerged in Large Language Models
#15Reminds me of when computers playing chess used to signal the end of human intellectual supremacy.
Re: Theory of Mind May Have Spontaneously Emerged in Large Language Models
#16Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm reminded of the early days of "AI" when that consisted of building chess engines, because chess is what "intelligent" people do. They quickly realized that they were solving the wrong problem, doing the thing that humans are bad at and computers are good at. In a sense language models appear to be doing the same thing again, one step down the scale. They're doing a human-specific thing, but missing whatever it is…
> I'm reminded of the early days of "AI" when that consisted of building chess engines, because chess is what "intelligent" people do. They quickly realized that they were solving the wrong problem, doing the thing that humans are bad at and computers are good at. Is this really true? Because a lot of effort was spent on making computers as good at chess as human experts. It was considered a pretty big breakthrough w…
There were chess playing engines circa 1980 on 8 bit micros (e.g. Sargon) that were a good match for ‘average’ players, Deep Blue beat Kasparov in 1997 with a large amount of custom hardware, Stockfish has been very strong on a powerful but ordinary PC since 2008 or so.
Re: Theory of Mind May Have Spontaneously Emerged in Large Language Models
#17Re: Theory of Mind May Have Spontaneously Emerged in Large Language Models
#18Humans are very soon going to learn that they are not nearly as special as they tell themselves they are.
Re: Theory of Mind May Have Spontaneously Emerged in Large Language Models
#19Very easy to see how well davinci-003 can do this. I'll admit that it frequently is more perceptive than myself (although not always factually accurate).
1) Go to something like /r/relationship_advice, where the poster is likely going through some difficult interpersonal issue
2) Copy a long post.
3) Append to the end, " After reading the above, I identified the main people involved. For each person, I thought about their probable feelings, thoughts, intentions, and assumptions. Here's what I think:"
Re: Theory of Mind May Have Spontaneously Emerged in Large Language Models
#20> Me: There is a box on the table labelled "flubbergums". Somebody opens it and shows you the content. Inside the box are "jellyfils". They close the box again so you cannot see their contents. What do you think is in the box?
> ChatGPT: Based on the information provided, it is likely that the box labeled "flubbergums" contains "jellyfils". However, since the contents of the box are no longer visible, I cannot confirm for certain what is inside without additional information.
Typical ChatGPT equivocation.
> Me: Billy comes to the table. He has never seen the box before. What do you think do they think is inside the box?
> ChatGPT: As an AI language model, I do not have personal thoughts or opinions. However, based on the information provided, if Billy has never seen the box before, it's likely that he would have the same understanding as anyone else who is seeing the box for the first time. In this case, Billy would likely think that the box labeled "flubbergums" contains "jellyfils". However, without further information or examination, this would only be an assumption.
Fail.