Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

I disagree with Geoff Hinton regarding "glorified autocomplete"

statmodeling.stat.columbia.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 279 posts

Re: I disagree with Geoff Hinton regarding "glorified autocomplete"

#151

Post by 1vuio0pswjnm7 »

Here is a question: What is the practical significance of viewing "AI" as autocomplete versus some other idea. Why try to influence how others view using a computer. Why anthromorphise. These are questions for which I have answers, but of course they are personal opinions. Historically, programmers often like to refer to programming as "magic". But magic is illusion, entertaintainment, tricks. Believing in "magic" is a personal choice.

Why not describe things in terms of what they do instead of what they "are". The latter is highly subjective and open to abuse.

NB. By "things" I mean software and the type of vacuous companies discussed on HN, not people (a bizarre comparison). For example, websites that go on and on about some so-called "tech" copmany but never once tell the reader what the company does. Or silly memes like "It's X for Y". What does it do and how does it work are questions that often go unasked and unanswered.

A few days ago someone related a story of working for a company that produced some software it claimed used "AI" but according to the commenter it used nothing more than regular expressions. Was ELIZA "AI". Maybe we should ask what isn't "AI". What happens with "magic" if the audience knows how the trick is performed.

Re: I disagree with Geoff Hinton regarding "glorified autocomplete"

#153

Post by lovecg »

usrbinbash wrote: post #111
jameshart wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Statistically predicting the next item means I am limited to the training set Not at all. Extrapolation is perfectly possible in a purely predictive model. It’s one of the things GPTs are best at. In the stream of tokens output by an LLM it’s completely possible for new concepts to emerge, and for it then to continue to use and build on them in the remainder of the stream. You see this simply executed in programmin…

> with LLMs where it is able to declare a novel function and then use it. Novel as in "implements a new algorithm that has never seen in any form and is actually an improvement over existing methodology"? Here is a little thought experiment: If all the training data in the set says that manned, powered flight is impossible, is a statistical prediction engine trained on that data capable of developing an airplane? In…

Now I’m wondering if birds didn’t exist how much longer would it take us to catch on that flight is possible at all.

Re: I disagree with Geoff Hinton regarding "glorified autocomplete"

#154

Post by IshKebab »

civilized wrote: post #135
IshKebab wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some humans created maths. And it took thousands of years of thinking and interaction with the real world. Seems like goalpost moving to me. I think the real things that separate LLMs from humans at the moment are: * Humans can do online learning. They have long term memory. I guess you could equate evolution to the training phase of AI but it still seems like they don't have quite the same on-line learning capabilit…

About this goalpost moving thing. It's become very popular to say this, but I have no idea what it's supposed to mean. It's like a metaphor with no underlying reality. Did a wise arbiter of truth set up goalposts that I moved? I guess I didn't get the memo. If the implied claim is "GPT would invent math too given enough time", go ahead and make that claim.

> Did a wise arbiter of truth set up goalposts that I moved?

Collectively, yes. The criticism of AI has always been "well it isn't AI because it can't do [thing just beyond its abilities].

Maybe individually your goalpost hasn't moved, and as soon as it invents some maths you'll say "yep, it's intelligent" (though I strongly doubt it). But collectively the naysayers in general will find another reason why it's not really intelligent. Not like us.

It's very tedious.

Re: I disagree with Geoff Hinton regarding "glorified autocomplete"

#155

Post by IshKebab »

naveen99 wrote: post #120
IshKebab wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some humans created maths. And it took thousands of years of thinking and interaction with the real world. Seems like goalpost moving to me. I think the real things that separate LLMs from humans at the moment are: * Humans can do online learning. They have long term memory. I guess you could equate evolution to the training phase of AI but it still seems like they don't have quite the same on-line learning capabilit…

Interestingly some humans will admit to not knowing but are allergic to admitting being wrong (and can get fairly vindictive if forced to admit being wrong). LLM’s actually admit to being wrong easily, but aren’t great at introspection and confabulate too often. also their Meta cognition is poor still.

I guess LLM's don't have the social pressure to avoid admitting errors. And those sort of interactions aren't common in text so they don't learn them strongly.

Also ChatGPT is trained specifically to be helpful and subservient.

Re: I disagree with Geoff Hinton regarding "glorified autocomplete"

#156

Post by lacrimacida »

breadwinner wrote: post #106

There is evidence that the human brain is also doing "autocomplete" (prediction). The human brain uses predictive mechanisms when processing language, and these mechanisms play an important role in forming thoughts. When we hear or read a word, our brain quickly generates a set of predictions about what word might come next, based on the context of the sentence and our past experiences with language. These prediction…

> When we hear or read a word, our brain quickly generates a set of predictions about what word might come next, based on the context of the sentence

Yes a big part of it is prediction but the brain also does something else which LLMs by themselves completely eschew. The human brain imagines in pictures, creates and uses abstractions to refine understanding, studies things and produces new knowledge. When human brains study the goal to understand is different than LLMs.

Re: I disagree with Geoff Hinton regarding "glorified autocomplete"

#157

Post by jofla_net »

lsy wrote: post #126
famouswaffles wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>The sum of all human artifacts ever made (or yet to be made) doesn't exhaust the description of a rock in your front yard, let alone the world in all its varied possibility. No human or creature we know of has a "true" world model so this is irrelevant. You don't experience the "real world". You experience a tiny slice of it, a few senses that is further slimmed down and even fabricated at parts. To the bird who can…

That's the difference though. I know my world model is fundamentally incomplete. Even more foundationally, I know that there is a world, and when my world model and the world disagree, the world wins. To a neural network there is no distinction. The closest the entire dynamic comes is the very basic annotation of RLHF which itself is done by an external human who is providing the value judgment, but even that is abse…

I do agree, but more importantly love this part of the argument! Its when all the personality differences become too much to bear and suddenly people are accused of not even knowing themselves. Been there before, what a wild ride!

Re: I disagree with Geoff Hinton regarding "glorified autocomplete"

#158

Post by civilized »

IshKebab wrote: post #154
civilized wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

About this goalpost moving thing. It's become very popular to say this, but I have no idea what it's supposed to mean. It's like a metaphor with no underlying reality. Did a wise arbiter of truth set up goalposts that I moved? I guess I didn't get the memo. If the implied claim is "GPT would invent math too given enough time", go ahead and make that claim.

> Did a wise arbiter of truth set up goalposts that I moved? Collectively, yes. The criticism of AI has always been "well it isn't AI because it can't do [thing just beyond its abilities]. Maybe individually your goalpost hasn't moved, and as soon as it invents some maths you'll say "yep, it's intelligent" (though I strongly doubt it). But collectively the naysayers in general will find another reason why it's not re…

Other than complaining about perceived inconsistencies in others' positions, what do you actually believe? Do you think GPT is AGI?

Re: I disagree with Geoff Hinton regarding "glorified autocomplete"

#159

Post by nighthawk454 »

I don’t see how this article even responds to the quote. Hinton didn’t make any claims that because it’s autocomplete it’s not thinking. If anything he’s saying really truly good autocomplete necessarily takes more understanding/thinking than a derogatory interpretation of ‘autocomplete’ would suggest.

Somehow OP seemed to twist that into “because I think on autopilot most of the time, then chatbots must think too”. Which is not totally incongruous with Hinton’s quote so much as a weird thing to balloon into an essay.

Re: I disagree with Geoff Hinton regarding "glorified autocomplete"

#160

Post by mattigames »

lsy wrote: post #126
famouswaffles wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>The sum of all human artifacts ever made (or yet to be made) doesn't exhaust the description of a rock in your front yard, let alone the world in all its varied possibility. No human or creature we know of has a "true" world model so this is irrelevant. You don't experience the "real world". You experience a tiny slice of it, a few senses that is further slimmed down and even fabricated at parts. To the bird who can…

That's the difference though. I know my world model is fundamentally incomplete. Even more foundationally, I know that there is a world, and when my world model and the world disagree, the world wins. To a neural network there is no distinction. The closest the entire dynamic comes is the very basic annotation of RLHF which itself is done by an external human who is providing the value judgment, but even that is abse…

In all these arguments its implied that this "genuine intelligence" is something humans all have, and nothing could be farther from the truth, that is why we have flat earthers or religious people and many other people beliving for decades easily refutable lies.
Post reply on HN