201–210 of 270 posts
I'm going to write duck facts in my next online argument to stave off the LLMs. Ducks start laying when they’re 4-8 months old, or during their first spring.
There is more than one comment here asserting that the authors should have done a parallel comparison study against humans on the same question bank as if the study authors had set out to investigate whether humans or LLMs reason better in this situation. The authors do include the claim that humans would immediately disregard this information and maybe some would and some wouldn't that could be debated and seemingly…
This is the crucial point. The vision is massive scale usage of agents that have capabilities far beyond humans, but whose edge case behaviours are often more difficult to predict. "Humans would also get this wrong sometimes" is not compelling.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Go back and look at the history of AI, including current papers from the most advanced research teams. Nearly every component is based on humans - neural net - long/short term memory - attention - reasoning - activation function - learning - hallucination - evolutionary algorithm If you're just consuming an AI to build a React app then you don't have to care. If you are building an artificial intelligence then in pra…
Just because something is named after the name of a biological concept doesn't mean it has anything to do with the original thing the name was taken from.
Next you'll tell me that Windows Hibernate and Bear® Hibernate™ have nothing in common?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Neural networks are a lot like brains. That they don't generally grow new neurons is something that (a) could be changed with a few lines of code and (b) seems like an insignificant detail anyway. > the brain does not do back propagation Do we know this? Ruling this out is tantamount to claiming that we know how brains do learn. My suspicion is that we don't currently know, and that it will turn out that, e.g., sleep…
No, we're pretty sure brains don't do backprop. See e.g. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-35221-w
This looks like it'll be useful for CAPTCHA purposes. According to the researchers, “the triggers are not contextual so humans ignore them when instructed to solve the problem”—but AIs do not. Not all humans, unfortunately: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_captain
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Did you read a single one of the examples? No human would be influenced by these.
It's ridiculous. People in here are acting like adding some trivia about a cat would destroy most peoples' ability to answer questions. I don't know if it's contrarianism, AI defensiveness, or an egotistical need to correct others with a gotcha, but people just LOVE to rush to invent ridiculous situations and act like it breaks a very reasonable generalization.
There is more than one comment here asserting that the authors should have done a parallel comparison study against humans on the same question bank as if the study authors had set out to investigate whether humans or LLMs reason better in this situation. The authors do include the claim that humans would immediately disregard this information and maybe some would and some wouldn't that could be debated and seemingly…
We went really quickly from "obviously noone will ever use these models for important things" to "we will at the first opportunity, so please at least try to limit the damage by making the models better"...
There is more than one comment here asserting that the authors should have done a parallel comparison study against humans on the same question bank as if the study authors had set out to investigate whether humans or LLMs reason better in this situation. The authors do include the claim that humans would immediately disregard this information and maybe some would and some wouldn't that could be debated and seemingly…
> if they are going to be mass deployed in society This is the crucial point. The vision is massive scale usage of agents that have capabilities far beyond humans, but whose edge case behaviours are often more difficult to predict. "Humans would also get this wrong sometimes" is not compelling.
Any person who looked at a restaurant table and couldn't review the bill because there were kid's drawings of cats on it would be severely mentally disabled, and never employed in any situation which required reliable arithmetic skills.
I cannot understand this ever more absurd levels of denying the most obvious, common-place, basic capabilities that the vast majority of people have and use regularly in their daily lives. It should be a wake-up call to anyone professing this view that they're off the deep-end in copium.
There is more than one comment here asserting that the authors should have done a parallel comparison study against humans on the same question bank as if the study authors had set out to investigate whether humans or LLMs reason better in this situation. The authors do include the claim that humans would immediately disregard this information and maybe some would and some wouldn't that could be debated and seemingly…
> models deployed in critical applications such as finance, law, and healthcare. We went really quickly from "obviously noone will ever use these models for important things" to "we will at the first opportunity, so please at least try to limit the damage by making the models better"...