Earlier quoted context omitted.
The terminology is so confusing in AI right now. I use LLMs, I enjoy them, I'm more productive with them. Then I go read a blog from some AI devs and they use terms like "thinking" or similar terms. I always have to ask "We're still s stringing words together with math right? Not really thinking right?" The answer is always yes ... but then they go back to using their wonky terms.
I can write or speak to a computer and it understands most of the time. It can even answer some questions correctly, much more so if given material to search in without being very specific. That’s… new. If it’s just a magic trick, it’s a damn good one. It was hard sci-fi 3 years ago.
What happens when people don't understand how AI works
251–260 of 359 posts
Re: What happens when people don't understand how AI works
#252Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well; many LLMs can compose a structured essay better than most undergrounds, yet most also struggle with basic addition. E.g. Gemma-3-4B: add 1 and 1 google/gemma-3-4b 1 + 1 = 2 add four to that google/gemma-3-4b 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 = 4 So, 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 4 = 8 Of course, smarter, billion dollar LLMs can do that. But, they aren't able to fetch one of 30 objects based on name, nor can they drive a car. They're often super…
the llm by default (without better prompting) is vibe solving math, and if you tell a human to vibe solve it they might give similar results. tell a teenager to add two three digit numbers without a scratchpad and they will mess up in similar ways, tell an llm to show and check their work and they will do much better.
1. "LLMs are smart they have intelligence that is some significant portion of the breadth of human cognition."
2. Me: "ALUs are also smart, maybe that's not a good word to use."
3. "But LLMs can write essays."
4. Me: "But they can't do basic math, so clearly there's different definitions of the word 'smart'"
5. "Yeah that's because they're vibe-solving math. Teenagers also operate on vibes."
What are you even talking about?? Its like you're an AI programmed to instantly attack any suggestion that LLMs have limitations.
Re: What happens when people don't understand how AI works
#253Earlier quoted context omitted.
I keep hearing anecdotes but the data, like a widely covered BBC study, say they only compress and shorten and routinely fail outside of testing on real world selection of only the most important content or topics.
You don't have to trust my word -- all you have to do is provide an LLM with a text that you are well familiar with and ask the LLM questions about it.
Re: What happens when people don't understand how AI works
#254Earlier quoted context omitted.
> So any and all human communication is divination in your book? Words from an AI are just words. Words in a human brain have more or less (depending on the individual's experiences) "stuff" attached to them: From direct sensory inputs to complex networks of experiences and though. Human thought is mainly not based on words. Language is an add-on. (People without language - never learned, or sometimes temporarily dis…
I can only agree with you. And I find it disturbing that every time someone points out what you just said, the counter argument is to reduce human experience and human consciousness to the shallowest possible interpretation so they can then say, “look, it's the same as what the machine does”.
Re: What happens when people don't understand how AI works
#255Earlier quoted context omitted.
I can write or speak to a computer and it understands most of the time. It can even answer some questions correctly, much more so if given material to search in without being very specific. That’s… new. If it’s just a magic trick, it’s a damn good one. It was hard sci-fi 3 years ago.
How did you get your questions answered prior to this?
Re: What happens when people don't understand how AI works
#256LLMs are divinatory instruments, our era's oracle, minus the incense and theatrics. If we were honest, we'd admit that "artificial intelligence" is just a modern gloss on a very old instinct: to consult a higher-order text generator and search for wisdom in the obscure. They tick all the boxes: oblique meaning, a semiotic field, the illusion of hidden knowledge, and a ritual interface. The only reason we don't call i…
Re: What happens when people don't understand how AI works
#257Earlier quoted context omitted.
The terminology is so confusing in AI right now. I use LLMs, I enjoy them, I'm more productive with them. Then I go read a blog from some AI devs and they use terms like "thinking" or similar terms. I always have to ask "We're still s stringing words together with math right? Not really thinking right?" The answer is always yes ... but then they go back to using their wonky terms.
Sometimes we anthropomorphize complex systems and it's not really a problem, like how water "tries" to flow downhill, or the printer "wants" cyan ink. It's how we signal there's sufficient complexity (or unknowns) that can be ignored or deferred. The problem arises when we apply this intuition to things where too many people in the audience might take it literally.
Re: What happens when people don't understand how AI works
#258Earlier quoted context omitted.
Or saying they’re close to AGI because LLM behavior is indistinguishable from thinking to them. Especially here on HN I see “what’s the difference?” arguments all the time. It looks like it to me so it must be it. QED.
or rather "while I have never studied psychology, cognition, or philosophy, I can see no difference, so clearly they are thinking!" makes the baby jesus cry
Re: What happens when people don't understand how AI works
#259Re: What happens when people don't understand how AI works
#260Earlier quoted context omitted.
The terminology is so confusing in AI right now. I use LLMs, I enjoy them, I'm more productive with them. Then I go read a blog from some AI devs and they use terms like "thinking" or similar terms. I always have to ask "We're still s stringing words together with math right? Not really thinking right?" The answer is always yes ... but then they go back to using their wonky terms.
Or saying they’re close to AGI because LLM behavior is indistinguishable from thinking to them. Especially here on HN I see “what’s the difference?” arguments all the time. It looks like it to me so it must be it. QED.
The butlerian view is actually a great place to start. He asserts that when we solve a problem through thinking and then express that solution in a machine we’re building a thinking machine. Because it’s an expression of our thought. Take for example the problem of a crow trying to drink from a bottle with a small neck. The crow can’t reach the water. It figures out that pebbles in the bottle raise the level so it drops pebbles till it can reach the water. That’s thinking. It’s non-human thinking, but I think we can all agree. Now express that same thought (use a non water displacement factor to raise the water to a level where it can do something useful) Any machine that does that expresses the cognition behind the solution to that particular problem. That might be a “one shot” machine. Butler argues that as we surround ourselves with those one shot machines we become enslaved to them because we can’t go about our lives without them. We are willing partners in that servitude but slaves because we see to the care and feeding of our machine masters, we reproduce them, we maintain them, we power them. His definition of thinking is quite specific. And any machine that expresses the solution to a problem is expressing a thought.
Now what if you had a machine that could generalize and issue solutions to many problems? Might that be a useful tool? Might it be so generally useful that we’d come to depend on it? From the Butlerian perspective our LLMS are already AGI. Namely I can go to Claude and ask for the solution to pretty much any problem I face and get a reasonable answer.
In many cases better than I could have done alone. So perhaps if we sat down with a double blind test LLMs are already ASI. (AI that exceeds the capability of normal humans)