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

131–140 of 140 posts

Re: How AI knows things no one told it

#131

Post by HarHarVeryFunny »

mike741 wrote: post #130
HarHarVeryFunny wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"The unicorn is a legendary creature" ... wow, you're right. that was disappointing. https://www.amazon.com/TrueRNG-V3-Hardware-Random-Generator/... https://tectrolabs.com/ https://comscire.com/ https://onerng.info/ https://www.idquantique.com/random-number-generation/product...

you are falling for the most basic marketing tricks in the book. just because something calls itself "trueRNG" does not mean it is. there's no possibility of those devices outputting an irrational number.

Did you google for irrational RNG ?

Re: How AI knows things no one told it

#132

Post by mike741 »

HarHarVeryFunny wrote: post #131
mike741 wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

you are falling for the most basic marketing tricks in the book. just because something calls itself "trueRNG" does not mean it is. there's no possibility of those devices outputting an irrational number.

Did you google for irrational RNG ?

finite state machines can't process irrational numbers. there's nothing we can google that will change that.

Re: How AI knows things no one told it

#133

Post by HarHarVeryFunny »

mike741 wrote: post #132
HarHarVeryFunny wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Did you google for irrational RNG ?

finite state machines can't process irrational numbers. there's nothing we can google that will change that.

You know the rules, and so do I:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oHg5SJYRHA0

Re: How AI knows things no one told it

#134

Post by mike741 »

HarHarVeryFunny wrote: post #133
mike741 wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

finite state machines can't process irrational numbers. there's nothing we can google that will change that.

You know the rules, and so do I: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oHg5SJYRHA0

yep. no hard feelings.

Re: How AI knows things no one told it

#135

Post by lucubratory »

mike741 wrote: post #125
lucubratory wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I said "novel theory of mind tests as part of a broad suite of intelligent capabilities that it can apply in context when appropriate". What you're suggesting fails the first word, before we get to the rest.

If we're including tests that don't exist yet, then sure those are going to be difficult to pass. As far as actual ToM tests go though, such as the one being discussed in this thread, they can be easily passed by trivial hardcoding and say nothing of the program's internal reasoning.

LLMs can pass novel theory of mind tests, which is what we're talking about. The whole point of good tests is you invent or withhold new ones it has never seen before and test it on them. You said "Those tasks could be completed a [sic] traditional static program.", and no, they can't. You're incorrect.

Re: How AI knows things no one told it

#136

Post by mike741 »

lucubratory wrote: post #135
mike741 wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If we're including tests that don't exist yet, then sure those are going to be difficult to pass. As far as actual ToM tests go though, such as the one being discussed in this thread, they can be easily passed by trivial hardcoding and say nothing of the program's internal reasoning.

LLMs can pass novel theory of mind tests, which is what we're talking about. The whole point of good tests is you invent or withhold new ones it has never seen before and test it on them. You said "Those tasks could be completed a [sic] traditional static program.", and no, they can't. You're incorrect.

> LLMs can pass novel theory of mind tests, which is what we're talking about.

Passing a ToM test is not what OP meant by having an "underlying theory of mind." OP's talking about the machine having an underlying mind (ie sentience, sapience, consciousness, etc), ToM tests are only testing output.

> You said "Those tasks could be completed a [sic] traditional static program.", and no, they can't. You're incorrect.

They can, a static program as I described would indeed answer that one question correctly, resulting in a positive ToM score, without seeing any training data whatsoever. Did the programmer see it? Maybe, but the machine didn't and it would pass the test regardless.

Re: How AI knows things no one told it

#137

Post by lucubratory »

mike741 wrote: post #136
lucubratory wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

LLMs can pass novel theory of mind tests, which is what we're talking about. The whole point of good tests is you invent or withhold new ones it has never seen before and test it on them. You said "Those tasks could be completed a [sic] traditional static program.", and no, they can't. You're incorrect.

> LLMs can pass novel theory of mind tests, which is what we're talking about. Passing a ToM test is not what OP meant by having an "underlying theory of mind." OP's talking about the machine having an underlying mind (ie sentience, sapience, consciousness, etc), ToM tests are only testing output. > You said "Those tasks could be completed a [sic] traditional static program.", and no, they can't. You're incorrect. Th…

If you have put the answer into the program then by definition you had the test available to you when you finalised the program, which means it is definitionally not a novel test.

Re: How AI knows things no one told it

#138

Post by mike741 »

lucubratory wrote: post #137
mike741 wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> LLMs can pass novel theory of mind tests, which is what we're talking about. Passing a ToM test is not what OP meant by having an "underlying theory of mind." OP's talking about the machine having an underlying mind (ie sentience, sapience, consciousness, etc), ToM tests are only testing output. > You said "Those tasks could be completed a [sic] traditional static program.", and no, they can't. You're incorrect. Th…

If you have put the answer into the program then by definition you had the test available to you when you finalised the program, which means it is definitionally not a novel test.

The test is novel to the program, just not its programmer. So are we testing the program or are we actually testing its programmer? If we're testing the program, then the programmer's foreknowledge is irrelevant.

Re: How AI knows things no one told it

#139

Post by lucubratory »

mike741 wrote: post #138
lucubratory wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you have put the answer into the program then by definition you had the test available to you when you finalised the program, which means it is definitionally not a novel test.

The test is novel to the program, just not its programmer. So are we testing the program or are we actually testing its programmer? If we're testing the program, then the programmer's foreknowledge is irrelevant.

>The test is novel to the program

That's funny, I thought you said the test's answer was embedded into the program, making it definitionally not novel to the program.

Anyway, this is boring. You've had five or more opportunities to understand what the word "novel" means in an ML testing context and are choosing wilful obtuseness instead.

Re: How AI knows things no one told it

#140

Post by mike741 »

lucubratory wrote: post #139
mike741 wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The test is novel to the program, just not its programmer. So are we testing the program or are we actually testing its programmer? If we're testing the program, then the programmer's foreknowledge is irrelevant.

>The test is novel to the program That's funny, I thought you said the test's answer was embedded into the program, making it definitionally not novel to the program. Anyway, this is boring. You've had five or more opportunities to understand what the word "novel" means in an ML testing context and are choosing wilful obtuseness instead.

> in an ML testing context

OP was not speaking in the ML testing context, hence the misunderstanding.

Post reply on HN