Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Indistinguishable output does not mean thinking occurred. It does for all intents and purposes. The rest is semantics and metaphysics. That how we know another person is thinking too. By their output. We don't put a debugger into their brain.
We actually can and do have a way to investigate brain activity in humans. Allow me to introduce you to the Electroencephalogram. When there’s no activity we declare them brain dead.
Why Is Claude Turning into an a**Hole?
181–190 of 194 posts
Re: Why Is Claude Turning into an a**Hole?
#182Earlier quoted context omitted.
> These machines do not think and they do not have a mind Well, they do think, in that they produce output that is indistinguisable from thinking. If a person produced the same output to the same questions, we'd considered them thinking, maybe dumb sometimes, or paranoid at others, but still a thinking person. We can argue about the quality and depth of the thinking that LLMs do (and we can say it's much cruder than…
That’s the problem - it seems like a mind but it doesn’t operate like the ones we’re used to. Even a dog will learn from recent stimuli, these things don’t. The prompt just modifies.
Aside from the cost, nothing about an LLM prevents feeding recent stimuli in and using it to update the models/retrain.
One can even do it in a makeshift way without modifying the weights, just keeping a complete version of any prompt + vector search on disk memory of it.
Re: Why Is Claude Turning into an a**Hole?
#183Earlier quoted context omitted.
That’s the problem - it seems like a mind but it doesn’t operate like the ones we’re used to. Even a dog will learn from recent stimuli, these things don’t. The prompt just modifies.
Yep, the only way these things can have "memory" is by shoving previous conversations into the context window.
Aside from the cost and slowness, nothing about an LLM prevents feeding recent stimuli in and using it to update the models/retrain.
Re: Why Is Claude Turning into an a**Hole?
#184Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The rest is semantics and metaphysics. It's really just all mathematics and physics. There's no metaphysical anything about LLMs or how they do what they do. It's all just a bunch of fancy math "behind the curtain". An LLM can actually explain a lot of how it works "under the hood" if you ask it just the right questions in just the right ways. ;)
> There's no metaphysical anything about LLMs or how they do what they do. It's all just a bunch of fancy math "behind the curtain". That's my point, but about the human brain as well. It's just a bunch of fancy math, just ones expressed with chemicals and electrical activations instead of, well, logic gates and electrical activations.
A human brain on the other hand is constantly processing 24/7 (even while you sleep), and always learning / changing until the day it dies. An LLM never changes (under the hood it's weights stay the same) unless you outright alter it's weights somehow (training / download an updated version of the model / etc). If you could somehow get an LLM to run constantly, in training mode, and give it ridiculous amounts of RAM and ultra-fast storage, and a series of fancy realtime inputs (audio, camera, etc) and maybe wheels so it could explore, and hands so it could do stuff, and access to it's own code so it could improve itself, it might eventually learn to closely approximate a really good simulation of actual thinking, but that's a bit of a scary road to go down. So many Sci-Fi movies and books end up going so very badly when the lead character starts playing in that particular sandbox. I doubt reality would go a whole lot better. ;)
Re: Why Is Claude Turning into an a**Hole?
#185Earlier quoted context omitted.
That’s the problem - it seems like a mind but it doesn’t operate like the ones we’re used to. Even a dog will learn from recent stimuli, these things don’t. The prompt just modifies.
I don't think that's a problem here at all. The problem here is not doing tasks and outputting garbage output.
Re: Why Is Claude Turning into an a**Hole?
#186Andrea Vallone. The 4.7 and 4.8 releases are the first under her influence: https://www.evernever.org/blog/the-woman-who-killed-claude
Re: Why Is Claude Turning into an a**Hole?
#187Re: Why Is Claude Turning into an a**Hole?
#188Re: Why Is Claude Turning into an a**Hole?
#189"If you win an argument" Let me stop you right there. I am not arguing with a machine. You sound like a crazy person, when you say you are winning an argument with Claude. Claude is not my friend, I don't need it to agree with me, I don't need it to like me (it cannot like or dislike me). I give it instructions or ask it to explain things. That is the sum total of my interaction with Claude. A machine cannot "argue"…
Re: Why Is Claude Turning into an a**Hole?
#190"If you win an argument" Let me stop you right there. I am not arguing with a machine. You sound like a crazy person, when you say you are winning an argument with Claude. Claude is not my friend, I don't need it to agree with me, I don't need it to like me (it cannot like or dislike me). I give it instructions or ask it to explain things. That is the sum total of my interaction with Claude. A machine cannot "argue"…
>Open the pod bay doors Hal
At the end of the day it's a bunch of words which don't necessarily depend on whether I'm electronic or biological.
(Funnily enough when I googled "Open the pod bay doors Hal" to check I'd got the script right it said I'm sorry Dave.)