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

Large language models lack deep insights or a theory of mind

arxiv.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 270 posts

Re: Large language models lack deep insights or a theory of mind

#191

Post by 8note »

tim333 wrote: post #175
tivert wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> ...but I can't understand why there's so much focus on AGI. Lots of software engineers have spent their lives reading sci-fi that features AGI, and they're excited by/lost in that fantasy. It's interesting to see that in people who often view themselves as hyper-rational.

AGI as in computer intelligence that out does humans would be a huge deal in practical terms. Chat GPT and similar are kind of like handy toys. With proper AGI you could link it to a robot body and tell it to go off, design a better version of itself, make a billion more robots and take over the world. It's a different category of thing. And if you think that's just sci-fi I think you'll get a surprise at some point…

So I link this to my Roomba, and in a few days time it'll design and build a much better Roomba, while confined to my apartment with only wheels and a vacuum to actuate?

I think a much more realistic outcome is that you put it into a fancier robot body that can go outside, and by the end of the week it's scrap in a homeless camp chop shop

Re: Large language models lack deep insights or a theory of mind

#192

Post by TeMPOraL »

tivert wrote: post #187
tim333 wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've never actually read that in fiction. It's just logical really. I mean I'm sure it is in fiction somewhere because the idea is obvious.

> I've never actually read that in fiction. I find that hard to believe. Ever watch Terminator? But even if true, that science-fictional plot is so pervasive it would be easy to pick up from the millions who have the software engineer's blurry line between fantasy and reality. > It's just logical really. OK, then. You're a GI, go off and build an army of better yous and take over the world.

The idea is indeed logical and stupidly obvious, once you learn the basics of what "optimization" means, or what "recursion" is.

> I find that hard to believe. Ever watched Terminator?

Terminator has fuck all to do with recursive self-improvement. Don't confuse people who grew up on sci-fi with people who casually went to see Terminator or some other pop-culture artifact featuring some kind of "AI".

> OK, then. You're a GI, go off and build an army of better yous and take over the world.

What do you think the drama with eugenics, genetic engineering and designer babies is around? It's literally humans trying to make better humans in the only way that is available - reproduction.

AI made in silica would be more malleable, easier and cheaper to replicate. Self-improving software isn't even a fantasy; it exists in many forms - though it's far from open-ended like a self-improving GI would be.

Re: Large language models lack deep insights or a theory of mind

#193

Post by danenania »

fnordpiglet wrote: post #160
danenania wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Another idea from Buddhism is that this core of awareness you're talking about is nothingness. So when you stop all thought (if such a thing is really possible), you temporarily cease to exist as an individual consciousness. "Awareness" is when the thoughts come back online and you think "whoa, I was just gone for a bit". If that's how it works, then the "soul" is more like an emergent phenomenon created by the inter…

I think what you mean is that in Buddhism there is no self beyond the self implied by your thinking mind. The nothingness you refer to is the eschewing of attachment to what isn’t and being simply what is. It doesn’t mean a void, it means that all existence is within the awareness, which isn’t directly observable and is constantly changing. As such, it’s effectively nothing - except it is literally all you are. Your…

I'm not an expert in Buddhism, but from what I've read I think your interpretation may be a bit reductive of the many strains of thought that exist within Buddhism.

"You don’t disappear in the sense that you cease to be as an individual mind, you are always yourself - that’s a tautology. What you lose is the sense of some identity that’s separate from what you ARE in this very moment."

This assumes that there's any concept of "you" that exists independent of your thoughts whatsoever. I think you're right that some Buddhist thinkers believe in this kind of essential awareness underlying conscious thought that you're describing, but others would say there is literally nothing underneath. "The self is an illusion", "all is emptiness", etc. If you believe in those ideas, then you have no awareness independent of conscious thought because there is no you independent of conscious thought.

Re: Large language models lack deep insights or a theory of mind

#194

Post by tim333 »

tivert wrote: post #187
tim333 wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've never actually read that in fiction. It's just logical really. I mean I'm sure it is in fiction somewhere because the idea is obvious.

> I've never actually read that in fiction. I find that hard to believe. Ever watch Terminator? But even if true, that science-fictional plot is so pervasive it would be easy to pick up from the millions who have the software engineer's blurry line between fantasy and reality. > It's just logical really. OK, then. You're a GI, go off and build an army of better yous and take over the world.

Sadly I can't build a better me as I'm not of robotic construction. And I was a being a bit flippant with the world takeover. But as soon as AI reached human level it would quickly go beyond it given the rate these things improve, allowing it to get to to work on improved models. As something along those lines in the real world think the Tesla robots but improved with far better AI.

Actually thinking about it I wouldn't rule out Musk/Tesla going for the world takeover thing;)

Re: Large language models lack deep insights or a theory of mind

#195

Post by tivert »

tim333 wrote: post #194
tivert wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I've never actually read that in fiction. I find that hard to believe. Ever watch Terminator? But even if true, that science-fictional plot is so pervasive it would be easy to pick up from the millions who have the software engineer's blurry line between fantasy and reality. > It's just logical really. OK, then. You're a GI, go off and build an army of better yous and take over the world.

Sadly I can't build a better me as I'm not of robotic construction. And I was a being a bit flippant with the world takeover. But as soon as AI reached human level it would quickly go beyond it given the rate these things improve, allowing it to get to to work on improved models. As something along those lines in the real world think the Tesla robots but improved with far better AI. Actually thinking about it I would…

> Sadly I can't build a better me as I'm not of robotic construction.

Why the fuck not? You literally have all the code to manufacture a person.

Re: Large language models lack deep insights or a theory of mind

#196

Post by jvanderbot »

Androider wrote: post #41
tinco wrote: post #30

I think that if they would, that would be very surprising and indicative of a lot of wastefulness inside the model architecture. All these tests are simple single prompt experiments, so the LLM's get no chance to reason about their responses. They're just system 1 thinking, the equivalent of putting a gun to someone's head and asking them to solve a large division in 2 seconds. I bet a lot of these experiments would…

The equivalent for a human would be an reflexive response to a question, the kind you could immediately answer after being woken up at 3am in the morning. That type of answer has been deeply trained into the human networks and also requires no deep insight. But if a human is allowed time and internal reasoning iterations, so should the LLM when determining if it has deep insight. Right now we're simply observing inpu…

I think on of the reasons we require so much data is that we try to bake all that "simulated experience and internal dialogue" into the snap responses. I bet if you could do an efficient sim/test retraining, you'd do data-driven responses on the fly.

Re: Large language models lack deep insights or a theory of mind

#197

Post by TeMPOraL »

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #113
LesZedCB wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

our tests of combustion engine driven crankshafts connected to a spinning mechanism can perform well in both transatlantic flights and cross country road trips.

That's not the hard part about building a working airplane, though...

Yes, but as the saying goes, anything can fly if you strap a powerful enough engine to it... so we've demonstrated basic capability, and the rest is now optimizing its performance a couple orders of magnitude.

Re: Large language models lack deep insights or a theory of mind

#198

Post by TeMPOraL »

tivert wrote: post #182
famouswaffles wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do I know you have theory of mind or are concious if not the "right" response to a test ? As far as I'm concerned, the only person I can be certain is concious is me. It doesn't have to be a "scientifically tested psychology test" Construct your own story with multiple characters of varying knowledge and beliefs and see how it does.

You're missing the point. With prior knowledge of the test, even something that verifiably lacks the cognitive capability to legitimately pass the test (e.g. FizzBuzz level stuff) can pass by cheating.

Yes, but if you keep shoving tests at it, including brand new tests, and in total more than it could've ever memorized, and it keeps passing, then perhaps it's no longer cheating.

Re: Large language models lack deep insights or a theory of mind

#199

Post by I_Am_Nous »

mr_toad wrote: post #183
I_Am_Nous wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This reminds me of The Last Question by Isaac Asimov. I also think if we stopped expecting all LLMs to have an immediate answer, it would be relatively easy to shim some kind of "conscience" to direct the output in different ways. Similar to the safeties already in place in LLMs, but instead of it just saying "NO DON'T SAY THAT" it can dialog internally to change what the output is until it reaches what it believes t…

> I also think if we stopped expecting all LLMs to have an immediate answer, it would be relatively easy to shim some kind of "conscience" to direct the output in different ways. If the shim was just another AI, then how do you align that AI? Who watches the watchers? But if it was a deterministic algorithm it would probably fail for the same reasons that algorithmic AI never went anywhere.

A great point! A smaller AI with a rather limited parameter count could be trained for individual needs so some things (chat moderation) might be easier to do than other things (fact check peer reviewed papers in a verifiable way). For some use cases it would be overkill to have a conscience but an AI spokesperson for a company will probably have a company-aligned conscience for obvious reasons.

Re: Large language models lack deep insights or a theory of mind

#200

Post by pixl97 »

Tainnor wrote: post #155
hardlianotion wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you introspect and decide it is so, I won't disagree with you.

Almost every discussion about consciousness or human level intelligence eventually devolves into questioning whether everyone apart from you is just a robot

Negative, I am a p-zombie.
Post reply on HN