Live data from Hacker News

A non-anthropomorphized view of LLMs

addxorrol.blogspot.com

321–330 of 432 posts

Re: A non-anthropomorphized view of LLMs

#321
post #318

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What does a submarine do? Submarine? I suppose you "drive" a submarine which is getting to the idea: submarines don't swim because ultimately they are "driven"? I guess the issue is we don't make up a new word for what submarines do, we just don't use human words. I think the above poster gets a little distracted by suggesting the models are creative which itself is disputed. Perhaps a better term, like above, would…

A submarine is a boat and boats sail.

An LLM is a stochastic generative model and stochastic generative models ... generate?

Re: A non-anthropomorphized view of LLMs

#322
post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> of this You mean that LLMs are more than just the matmuls they're made up of, or that that is exactly what they are and how great that is?

Not making a qualitative assessment of any of it. Just pointing out that there are ways to build separate sets of intuition outside of using the "usual" presentation layer. It's very possible to take a red-team approach to these systems, friend.

Yes, and what I was trying to do is learn a bit more about that alternative intuition of yours. Because it doesn't sound all that different from what's described in the OP, or what anyone can trivially glean from taking a 101 course on AI at university or similar.

Re: A non-anthropomorphized view of LLMs

#323
post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not making a qualitative assessment of any of it. Just pointing out that there are ways to build separate sets of intuition outside of using the "usual" presentation layer. It's very possible to take a red-team approach to these systems, friend.

They don't want to. It seems a lot of people are uncomfortable and defensive about anything that may demystify LLMs. It's been a wake up call for me to see how many people in the tech space have such strong emotional reactions to any notions of trying to bring discourse about LLMs down from the clouds. The campaigns by the big AI labs have been quite successful.

Do you actually consider this is an intellectually honest position? That you have thought about this long and hard, like you present this, second guessed yourself a bunch, tried to critique it, and this is still what you ended up converging on?

But let me substantiate before you (rightly) accuse me of just posting a shallow dismissal.

> They don't want to.

Who's they? How could you possibly know? Are you a mind reader? Worse, a mind reader of the masses?

> It seems a lot of people are uncomfortable and defensive about anything that may demystify LLMs.

That "it seems" is doing some serious work over there. You may perceive and describe many people's comments as "uncomfortable and defensive", but that's entirely your own head cannon. All it takes is for someone to simply disagree. It's worthless.

Have you thought about other possible perspectives? Maybe people have strong opinions because they consider what things present as more important than what they are? [0] Maybe people have strong opinions because they're borrowing from other facets of their personal philosophies, which is what they actually feel strongly about? [1] Surely you can appreciate that there's more to a person than what equivalent-presenting "uncomfortable and defensive" comments allow you to surmise? This is such a blatant textbook kneejerk reaction. "They're doing the thing I wanted to think they do anyways, so clearly they do it for the reasons I assume. Oh how correct I am."

> to any notions of trying to bring discourse about LLMs down from the clouds

(according to you)

> The campaigns by the big AI labs have been quite successful.

(((according to you)))

"It's all the big AI labs having successfully manipulated the dumb sheep which I don't belong to!" Come on... Is this topic really reaching political grifting kind of levels?

[0] tangent: if a feature exists but even after you put an earnest effort into finding it you still couldn't, does that feature really exist?

[1] philosophy is at least kind of a thing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Getting_to_Philosoph...

Re: A non-anthropomorphized view of LLMs

#324

I have the technical knowledge to know how LLMs work, but I still find it pointless to not anthropomorphize, at least to an extent. The language of "generator that stochastically produces the next word" is just not very useful when you're talking about, e.g., an LLM that is answering complex world modeling questions or generating a creative story. It's at the wrong level of abstraction, just as if you were discussing…

On the contrary, anthropomorphism IMO is the main problem with narratives around LLMs - people are genuinely talking about them thinking and reasoning when they are doing nothing of that sort (actively encouraged by the companies selling them) and it is completely distorting discussions on their use and perceptions of their utility.

> people are genuinely talking about them thinking and reasoning when they are doing nothing of that sort

With such strong wording, it should be rather easy to explain how our thinking differs from what LLMs do. The next step - showing that what LLMs do precludes any kind of sentience is probably much harder.

Re: A non-anthropomorphized view of LLMs

#325

I have the technical knowledge to know how LLMs work, but I still find it pointless to not anthropomorphize, at least to an extent. The language of "generator that stochastically produces the next word" is just not very useful when you're talking about, e.g., an LLM that is answering complex world modeling questions or generating a creative story. It's at the wrong level of abstraction, just as if you were discussing…

I beg to differ.

Anthropomorphizing might blind us to solutions to existing problems. Perhaps instead of trying to come up with the correct prompt for a LLM, there exists a string of words (not necessary ones that make sense) that will get the LLM to a better position to answer given questions.

When we anthropomorphize we are inherently ignore certain parts of how LLMs work, and imagining parts that don't even exist

Re: A non-anthropomorphized view of LLMs

#326

I have the technical knowledge to know how LLMs work, but I still find it pointless to not anthropomorphize, at least to an extent. The language of "generator that stochastically produces the next word" is just not very useful when you're talking about, e.g., an LLM that is answering complex world modeling questions or generating a creative story. It's at the wrong level of abstraction, just as if you were discussing…

That higher level does exist, indeed a lot philosophy of mind then cognitive science has been investigating exactly this space and devising contested professional nomenclature and modeling about such things for decades now.

A useful anchor concept is that of world model, which is what "learning Othello" and similar work seeks to tease out.

As someone who worked in precisely these areas for years and has never stopped thinking about them,

I find it at turns perplexing, sigh-inducing, and enraging, that the "token prediction" trope gained currency and moreover that it continues to influence people's reasoning about contemporary LLM, often as subtext: an unarticulated fundamental model, which is fundamentally wrong in its critical aspects.

It's not that this description of LLM is technically incorrect; it's that it is profoundly _misleading_ and I'm old enough and cynical enough to know full well that many of those who have amplified it and continue to do so, know this very well indeed.

Just as the lay person fundamentally misunderstands the relationship between "programming" and these models, and uses slack language in argumentation, the problem with this trope and the reasoning it entails is that what is unique and interesting and valuable about LLM for many applications and interests is how they do what they do. At that level of analysis there is a very real argument to be made that the animal brain is also nothing more than an "engine of prediction," whether the "token" is a byte stream or neural encoding is quite important but not nearly important as the mechanics of the system which operates on those tokens.

To be direct, it is quite obvious that LLM have not only vestigial world models, but also self-models; and a general paradigm shift will come around this when multimodal models are the norm: because those systems will share with we animals what philosophers call phenomenology, a model of things as they are "perceived" through the senses. And like we humans, these perceptual models (terminology varies by philosopher and school...) will be bound to the linguistic tokens (both heard and spoken, and written) we attach to them.

Vestigial is a key word but an important one. It's not that contemporary LLM have human-tier minds, nor that they have animal-tier world modeling: but they can only "do what they do" because they have such a thing.

Of looming importance—something all of us here should set aside time to think about—is that for most reasonable contemporary theories of mind, a self-model embedded in a world-model, with phenomenology and agency, is the recipe for "self" and self-awareness.

One of the uncomfortable realities of contemporary LLM already having some vestigial self-model, is that while they are obviously not sentient, nor self-aware, as we are, or even animals are, it is just as obvious (to me at least) that they are self-aware in some emerging sense and will only continue to become more so.

Among the lines of finding/research most provocative in this area is the ongoing often sensationalized accounting in system cards and other reporting around two specific things about contemporary models: - they demonstrate behavior pursuing self-preservation - they demonstrate awareness of when they are being tested

We don't—collectively or individually—yet know what these things entail, but taken with the assertion that these models are developing emergent self-awareness (I would say: necessarily and inevitably),

we are facing some very serious ethical questions.

The language adopted by those capitalizing and capitalizing _from_ these systems so far is IMO of deep concern, as it betrays not just disinterest in our civilization collectively benefiting from this technology, but also, that the disregard for human wellbeing implicit in e.g. the hostility to UBI, or, Altman somehow not seeing a moral imperative to remain distant from the current adminstation, implies directly a much greater disregard for "AI wellbeing."

That that concept is today still speculative is little comfort. Those of us watching this space know well how fast things are going, and don't mistake plateaus for the end of the curve.

I do recommend taking a step back from the line-level grind to give these things some thought. They are going to shape the world we live out our days in and our descendents will spend all of theirs in.

Re: A non-anthropomorphized view of LLMs

#327

I have the technical knowledge to know how LLMs work, but I still find it pointless to not anthropomorphize, at least to an extent. The language of "generator that stochastically produces the next word" is just not very useful when you're talking about, e.g., an LLM that is answering complex world modeling questions or generating a creative story. It's at the wrong level of abstraction, just as if you were discussing…

I beg to differ. Anthropomorphizing might blind us to solutions to existing problems. Perhaps instead of trying to come up with the correct prompt for a LLM, there exists a string of words (not necessary ones that make sense) that will get the LLM to a better position to answer given questions. When we anthropomorphize we are inherently ignore certain parts of how LLMs work, and imagining parts that don't even exist

> there exists a string of words (not necessary ones that make sense) that will get the LLM to a better position to answer

exactly. The opposite is also true. You might supply more clarifying information to the LLM, which would help any human answer, but it actually degrades the LLM's output.

Re: A non-anthropomorphized view of LLMs

#328
post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> LLMs are not conscious because unlike human brains they don't learn or adapt (yet). That's neither a necessary nor sufficient condition. In order to be conscious, learning may not be needed, but a perception of the passing of time may be needed which may require some short-term memory. People with severe dementia often can't even remember the start of a sentence they are reading, they can't learn, but they are cert…

You should note that "what is consciousness" is still very much an unsettled debate.

But nobody would dispute my basic definition (it is the subjective feeling or perception of being in the world).

There are unsettled questions but that definition will hold regardless.

Re: A non-anthropomorphized view of LLMs

#329
post #318

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A submarine is a boat and boats sail.

An LLM is a stochastic generative model and stochastic generative models ... generate?

And we are there. A boat sails, and a submarine sails. A model generates makes perfect sense to me. And saying chatgpt generated a poem feels correct personally. Indeed a model (e.g. a linear regression) generates predictions for the most part.

Re: A non-anthropomorphized view of LLMs

#330

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What does a submarine do? Submarine? I suppose you "drive" a submarine which is getting to the idea: submarines don't swim because ultimately they are "driven"? I guess the issue is we don't make up a new word for what submarines do, we just don't use human words. I think the above poster gets a little distracted by suggesting the models are creative which itself is disputed. Perhaps a better term, like above, would…

Depends on if you are talking about an llm or to the llm. Talking to the llm, it would not understand that "model a poem" means to write a poem. Well, it will probably guess right in this case, but if you go out of band too much it won't understand you. The hard problem today is rewriting out of band tasks to be in band, and that requires anthropomorphizing.

> it won't understand you

Oops.

Post reply on HN