101–110 of 274 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you think talking to an LLM is the same experience as talking to a human you should probably talk to more humans
That's not what I said. What I said is that the claim "LLMs aren't intelligent because they stochastically produce characters" doesn't hold because humans do that too even if they're intelligent and authorative.
I asked Perplexity some question for sample UI code for Rust / Slint, it gave me a beautiful web UI, I think it got confused because I wanted to make a UI for an API that has its own web UI, I told it you did NOT give me code for Slint, even though some of its output made references to "ui.slint" and other Rust files, it realized its mistake and gave me exactly what I wanted to see.
tl;dr why dont llms just vet themselves with a new context window to see if they actually answered the question? The "reasoning" models don't always reason.
The thing holding AI back is that LLMS are not world models, and do not have world models. Being confidently wrong is just a side effect of that. You need a model of the world to be uncertain about. Without one, you have no way to estimate whether your next predicted sentence is true, false, or uncertain; one predicted sentence is as good as another as long as it resembles the training data.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It isn't though, the most factually correct human expert is also stochastic. The only question is how the dice are weighted.
"human expert" as reference for "factually correct", oh just gently caress yourself. Appeal to authority (expert = social status) is as much bullshit as appeal to popularity.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's not what I said. What I said is that the claim "LLMs aren't intelligent because they stochastically produce characters" doesn't hold because humans do that too even if they're intelligent and authorative.
We don't actually know how human cognition works, so how do you know that humans "stochastically produce characters?"
Also you could always pick the most likely token in an LLM as well to make it deterministic if you really wanted.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"human expert" as reference for "factually correct", oh just gently caress yourself. Appeal to authority (expert = social status) is as much bullshit as appeal to popularity.
Right now the fully deterministic always correct oracle machine doesn't exist. The most authorative answer we can get on a subject is from a respected human in their field (who is still stochastic). It's unrealistic to hold LLMs to a higher standard than that.
- Jacob Veldhuyzen van Zanten, respected aviation expert, 1977 teneriffa, brushing off the flight engineers concern about another machine on the runway
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Being confidently wrong isn't even the problem. It's a symptom of the much deeper problem that these things aren't AI at all, they're just atocomplete bots good enough to kind of seem like AI. There's no actual intelligence. That's the problem.
No. The experts in the field are past this argument. People have moved on. It is clear to everyone who builds LLMs that the AI is intelligent. The algorithm was autocomplete, but we are finding as an autocomplete bot is basically autocompleting things with humanity changing intelligent content. Your opinion is a minority now and not shared by people on the forefront of building these things. Your holding onto the ini…
Minority != wrong, with many historic examples that imploded in spectacular fashion. People at the forefront of building these things aren't immune from grandiose beliefs, many of them are practically predisposed to them. They also have a vested interest in perpetuating the hype to secure their generational wealth.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We don't actually know how human cognition works, so how do you know that humans "stochastically produce characters?"
Do humans always answer exactly the same way to the same question? No. Also you could always pick the most likely token in an LLM as well to make it deterministic if you really wanted.
One thing humans tend not to do is confabulate entirely to the degree that LLMs do. When humans do so, it's considered a mental illness. Simply saying the same thing in a different way is not the same as randomly randomly syntactically correct nonsense. Most humans will not, now and then, answer that 2 + 2 = 5, or that the sun rises in the southeast.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Right now the fully deterministic always correct oracle machine doesn't exist. The most authorative answer we can get on a subject is from a respected human in their field (who is still stochastic). It's unrealistic to hold LLMs to a higher standard than that.
"The runway is free" - Jacob Veldhuyzen van Zanten, respected aviation expert, 1977 teneriffa, brushing off the flight engineers concern about another machine on the runway