Live data from Hacker News

Language is not essential for the cognitive processes that underlie thought

scientificamerican.com

191–200 of 424 posts

Re: Language is not essential for the cognitive processes that underlie thought

#191
post #48

This is an important result. The actual paper [1] says that functional MRI (which is measuring which parts of the brain are active by sensing blood flow) indicates that different brain hardware is used for non-language and language functions. This has been suspected for years, but now there's an experimental result. What this tells us for AI is that we need something else besides LLMs. It's not clear what that someth…

The projects mapping the brain, combined with research on what areas do, should tell us what components are necessary for our design. Studying the behavior of their specialist structures will tell us how to make purpose-built components for these tasks. Even if not, just attempting to split up the global behavior in that many ways with specialist architecture might help. We can also imitate how the components synchronize together, too.

An example was the problem of memory shared between systems. ML people started doing LLM’s with RAG. I looked into neuroscience which suggested we need a hippocampus model. I found several papers with hippocampus-like models. Combining LLM’s, vision, etc with hippocampus-like model might get better results. Rinse repeat for these other brain areas wherever we can understand them.

I also agree on testing the architectures with small, animal brains. Many do impressive behaviors that we should be able to recreate in simulators or with robotics. Some are useful, too, like how geese are good at security. Maybe embed a trained, goose brain into a camera system.

Re: Language is not essential for the cognitive processes that underlie thought

#192
post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It sounds like you think this research is wrong? (it claims llms can not reason) https://arstechnica.com/ai/2024/10/llms-cant-perform-genuine... or do you maybe think no logical reasoning is needed to do everything a human can do? Tho humans seem to be able to do logical reasoning

It says "current" LLMs can't "genuinely" reason. Also, one of the researchers then posted an internship for someone to work on LLM reasoning. I think the paper should've included controls, because we don't know how strong the result is. They certainly may have proven that humans can't reason either.

If they had human controls, they might well show that some humans can’t do any better, but based on how they generated test cases, it seems unlikely to me that doing so would prove that humans cannot reason (of course, if that’s actually the case, we cannot trust ourselves to devise, execute and interpret these tests in the first place!)

Some people will use any limitation of LLMs to deny there is anything to see here, while others will call this ‘moving the goalposts’, but the most interesting questions, I believe, involve figuring out what the differences are, putting aside the question of whether LLMs are or are not AGIs.

Re: Language is not essential for the cognitive processes that underlie thought

#193
post #48

This is an important result. The actual paper [1] says that functional MRI (which is measuring which parts of the brain are active by sensing blood flow) indicates that different brain hardware is used for non-language and language functions. This has been suspected for years, but now there's an experimental result. What this tells us for AI is that we need something else besides LLMs. It's not clear what that someth…

When you look at how humans play chess they employ several different cognitive strategies. Memorization, calculation, strategic thinking, heuristics, and learned experience. When the first chess engines came out they only employed one of these: calculation. It wasn't until relatively recently that we had computer programs that could perform all of them. But it turns out that if you scale that up with enough compute y…

> It's not clear to me that LLMs sufficiently scaled won't achieve superhuman performance

To some extent this is true.

To calculate A + B you could for example generate A, B for trillions of combinations and encode that within the network. And it would calculate this faster than any human could.

But that's not intelligence. And Apple's research showed that LLMs are simply inferring relationships based on the tokens it has access to. Which you can throw off by adding useless information or trying to abstract A + B.

Re: Language is not essential for the cognitive processes that underlie thought

#194
post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What this tells us for AI is that we need something else besides LLMs Not to over-hype LLMs, but I don't see why this results says this. AI doesn't need to do things the same way as evolved intelligence has.

One reason might that LLMs are successful because of the architecture, but also, just as importantly because they can be trained over a volume and diversity of human thought that’s encapsulated in language (that is on the internet). Where are we going to find the equivalent data set that will train this other kind of thinking? Open AI O1 seems to be trained on mostly synthetic data, but it makes intuitive sense that…

I always start with God’s design thinking it is best. That’s our diverse, mixed-signal, brain architecture followed by a good upbringing. That means we need to train brain-like architectures in the same way we train children. So, we’ll need whatever data they needed. Multiple streams for different upbringings, too.

The data itself will be most senses collecting raw data about the world most of the day for 18 years. It might require a camera on the kid’s head which I don’t like. I think people letting a team record their life is more likely. Split the project up among many families running in parallel, 1-4 per grade/year. It would probably cost a few million a year.

(Note: Parent changes might require an integration step during AI training or showing different ones in the early years.)

The training system would rapidly scan this information in. It might not be faster than human brains. If it is, we can create them quickly. That’s the passive learning part, though.

Human training involves asking lots of questions based on internal data, random exploration (esp play) with reinforcement, introspection/meditation, and so on. Self-driven, generative activities whose outputs become inputs into the brain system. This training regiment will probably need periodic breaks from passive learning to ask questions or play which requires human supervision.

Enough of this will probably produce… disobedient, unpredictable children. ;) Eventually, we’ll learn how to do AI parenting where the offspring are well-behaved, effective servants. Those will be fine-tuned for practical applications. Later, many more will come online which are trained by different streams of life experience, schooling methods, etc.

That was my theory. I still don’t like recording people’s lives to train AI’s. I just thought it was the only way to build brain-like AI’s and likely to happen (see Twitch).

My LLM concept was to do the same thing with K-12 education resources, stories, kids games, etc. Parents already could tell us exactly what to use to gradually build them up since they did that for their kids year by year. Then, several career tracts layering different college books and skill areas. I think it would be cheaper than GPT-4 with good performance.

Re: Language is not essential for the cognitive processes that underlie thought

#195
It's worth noting the precise and narrow sense in which the term "language" is used throughout these studies: it is those particular "word sequences" that activate particular regions in the brain's left hemisphere, to the exclusion of other forms of symbolic representation such as mathematical notation. Indeed, in two of the studies cited, [0] [1] subjects with language deficits or brain lesions in areas associated with the "language network" are asked to perform on various mathematical tasks involving algebraic expressions [0] or Arabic numerals [1]:

> DA was impaired in solving simple addition, subtraction, division or multiplication problems, but could correctly simplify abstract expressions such as (b×a)÷(a×b) or (a+b)+(b+a) and make correct judgements whether abstract algebraic equations like b − a = a − b or (d÷c)+a=(d+a)÷(c+a) were true or false.

> Sensitivity to the structural properties of numerical expressions was also evaluated with bracket problems, some requiring the computation of a set of expressions with embedded brackets: for example, 90  [(3  17)  3].

Discussions of whether or not these sorts of algebraic or numerical expressions constitute a "language of mathematics" aside (despite them not engaging the same brain regions and structures associated with the word "language"); it may be the case that these sorts of word sequences and symbols processed by structures in the brain's left hemisphere are not essential for thought, but can still serve as a useful psychotechnology or "bicycle of the mind" to accelerate and leverage its innate capabilities. In a similar fashion to how this sort of mathematical notation allows for more concise and precise expression of mathematical objects (contrast "the number that is thrice of three and seventeen less of ninety") and serves to amplify our mathematical capacities, language can perhaps be seen as a force multiplier; I have doubts whether those suffering from aphasia or an agrammatic condition would be able to rise to the heights of cognitive performance.

[0] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17306848/

[1] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15713804/

Re: Language is not essential for the cognitive processes that underlie thought

#196
post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When you look at how humans play chess they employ several different cognitive strategies. Memorization, calculation, strategic thinking, heuristics, and learned experience. When the first chess engines came out they only employed one of these: calculation. It wasn't until relatively recently that we had computer programs that could perform all of them. But it turns out that if you scale that up with enough compute y…

It sounds like you think this research is wrong? (it claims llms can not reason) https://arstechnica.com/ai/2024/10/llms-cant-perform-genuine... or do you maybe think no logical reasoning is needed to do everything a human can do? Tho humans seem to be able to do logical reasoning

The later.

While I generally do suspect that we need to invent some new technique in the realm of AI in order for software to do everything a human can do, I use analogies like chess engines to caution myself from certainty.

Re: Language is not essential for the cognitive processes that underlie thought

#197
post #48

This is an important result. The actual paper [1] says that functional MRI (which is measuring which parts of the brain are active by sensing blood flow) indicates that different brain hardware is used for non-language and language functions. This has been suspected for years, but now there's an experimental result. What this tells us for AI is that we need something else besides LLMs. It's not clear what that someth…

Brain size isn't necessarily a very good correlate of intelligence. For example dolphins and elephants have bigger brains than humans, and sperm whales have much bigger brains (5x by volume). Neanderthals also had bigger brains than modern humans, but are not thought to have been more intelligent. A crow has a small brain, but also has very small neurons, so ends up having 1.5B neurons, similar to a dog or some monke…

It's probably more relevant to compare intraspecies rather than interspecies.

And it turns out that human brain volume and intelligence are moderately-highly correlated [1][2]!

[1]: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7440690/ [2]: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S01602...

Re: Language is not essential for the cognitive processes that underlie thought

#198
post #48

This is an important result. The actual paper [1] says that functional MRI (which is measuring which parts of the brain are active by sensing blood flow) indicates that different brain hardware is used for non-language and language functions. This has been suspected for years, but now there's an experimental result. What this tells us for AI is that we need something else besides LLMs. It's not clear what that someth…

> What this tells us for AI is that we need something else besides LLMs.

Perhaps, but the relative success of trained LLMs acting with apparent generalised understanding may indicate that it is simply the interface that is really an LLM post training;

That the deeper into the network you go (the further from the linguistic context), the less things become about words and linguist structure specifically and the more it becomes about things and relations in general.

(This also means that multiple interfaces can be integrated, sometimes making translation possible, e.g.: image tree)

Re: Language is not essential for the cognitive processes that underlie thought

#199
post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Chomsky is shockingly un humble. I admire him but he's a jerk who treats people who disagree with him with contempt. It's fun to read him doing this but it's uncollegiate (to say the least). Also, calling "generative grammar" productive seems wrong to me. It's been around for half a century -- what tools has it produced? At some point theory needs to come into contact with empirical reality. As far as I know, generat…

Who has he mistreated?

Nobody, people are just crying because Chomsky calls them out, rationally, on their intellectual and/or political bullshit, and this behavior is known as projection.

Re: Language is not essential for the cognitive processes that underlie thought

#200
post #90

As some who has a dis-harmonic intelligence profile, this has been obvious for a very long time. In the family of my mother there are several individuals struggling with language while excelling in the field of exact sciences. I very strongly suspect that my non-verbal (performal) IQ is much higher (around 130) than my verbal IQ (around 100). I have struggled my whole life to express my ideas with language. I conside…

Growing up, I never used words or even sentences for thinking. The abstract visualizations I could build in my mind where comparable to semi-transparent buildings that I could freely spin, navigate and bend to connect relations. In my mid-twenties, someone introduced me to the concept of people using words for mental processes, which was completely foreign to me up to this point. For some reason, this made my brain m…

This reminds me of my experiences working with a software developer transplanted from the humanities who was highly articulate and capable of producing language about programming, yet seemed to not be able to write many actual computer programs themselves.

I think that I ultimately developed an obsessive need to cite all my ideas against the literature and formulate natural language arguments for my claims to avoid being bludgeoned over the head with wordcelry and being seen as inferior for my lesser verbal fluency despite having written software for years at that point, since early childhood, and even studied computer science.

Post reply on HN