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

Thoughts on thinking

dcurt.is

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

431–440 of 459 posts

Re: Thoughts on thinking

#431

Post by MoonGhost »

abakker wrote: post #193
MoonGhost wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> AI pushes you towards That's interesting point. But here is the thing: you are supposed to drive. Not AI god. Look at it as at an assistant whom you can interrupt, instruct, correct, ask to redo. While focusing on 'what' you can delegate it some 'how' problems.

I for one, thing directing subordinates to do something I could be doing kinda … sucks? Like, I get that’s how you have to work with LLMs, but it isn’t a fun thing to do for me.

It depends how much. I used LLM to do simple web development for me. I even don't want to learn HTML, JS that much. I'm already hitting the limits. For the same reasons writing complex ffmpeg command line (can do simple myself), using some libs just ones. There are many small things makes no sense to learn too deep. Easier to offload. For narrow tasks in big companies it's probably different, but open ended hobby robotics covers almost everything. I can't be an expert in all topics. Now with LLM assistant one persone alone can work like a small team.

Re: Thoughts on thinking

#432

Post by MoonGhost »

taylorallred wrote: post #346
MoonGhost wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> AI pushes you towards That's interesting point. But here is the thing: you are supposed to drive. Not AI god. Look at it as at an assistant whom you can interrupt, instruct, correct, ask to redo. While focusing on 'what' you can delegate it some 'how' problems.

Yeah this is a fair point. In honesty, the attempts I have made to have GPT help me think creatively has usually left me disappointed and feeling like it was picking safe, middle-of-the-road solutions. That could be on my prompting skills but also I tend to view LLMs as more of a fuzzy information retrieval tool than a creative/reasonable one. It just hasn’t shown me original ideas that have seemed compelling to me y…

It takes practice. LLM can't read your mind, put it in prompt if you have some specific ideas. Usually helps to ask for options and overview first. You may get some ideas here. I think communication barrier is one of biggest problems when working with LLM. You can often see posts like "I asked it for XX" and it gave me some crap in return. Well, it depends on 'how' you ask. Also you need to consciously stay in control. At takes some efforts and usually LLM is arrogant, bossy, self confident, and sometimes manipulative. Just like human 'experts' on forums.

Re: Thoughts on thinking

#433

Post by [deleted] »

bsenftner wrote: post #377
daveguy wrote: post #370

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> LLMs are fantastic communicators, who will mirror their audience in an attempt to be better understood, but... This seems to represent a complete misunderstanding of what LLMs are and do. There is not a single LLM that "attempts" to be understood or anything else other than produce tokens. They have no autonomy.

Don't nit pick on my use of the term "attempt", I'm describing how the words used in a prompt generate the context that then generates the reply. In this specific human language context my use of "attempt" is describing the LLMs choice of words in it's reply. I know there is no "attempting" as a human would "attempt". I'm paraphrasing and alluding rather than writing a formal and complex essay.

[deleted]

Re: Thoughts on thinking

#434

Post by [deleted] »

bsenftner wrote: post #377
daveguy wrote: post #370

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> LLMs are fantastic communicators, who will mirror their audience in an attempt to be better understood, but... This seems to represent a complete misunderstanding of what LLMs are and do. There is not a single LLM that "attempts" to be understood or anything else other than produce tokens. They have no autonomy.

Don't nit pick on my use of the term "attempt", I'm describing how the words used in a prompt generate the context that then generates the reply. In this specific human language context my use of "attempt" is describing the LLMs choice of words in it's reply. I know there is no "attempting" as a human would "attempt". I'm paraphrasing and alluding rather than writing a formal and complex essay.

[deleted]

Re: Thoughts on thinking

#435

Post by fennecbutt »

jonplackett wrote: post #273
parodysbird wrote: post #258

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To emphasize again part of the post above: "The aim of our creation is communication and mutual-transformation". When I write a poem in a birthday card for my wife to give her on her birthday, very little of the "meaning" that will be communicated to (and more importantly with ) her is really from some generic semantic interpretation of the tokens. Instead, almost all of the meaning will come from it being an actual…

Someone just the other day told me about how they used to have a group WhatsApp where they’d share these hand made memes. Just a bunch of guys photoshopping dumb stuff. It went on for years. One day one of them discovers AI and post anything made with AI - initially it’s great, it’s much better quality than what they could photoshop. Everyone jumps on board. But after a day or so, the joke is over. The love has gone.…

Do all of you replying to me also weep for expensive hand woven fabrics? You're all wearing the fruits of automatic looms. It's the same thing.

You own cars, do you weep for the horse industry? Stables, farriers, blacksmiths, leatherworkers/saddlers, ostlers, grooms, etc.

What is an art now becomes a functional ubiquity later. Everything took "insight and effort" because everything was handmade, it's an innate feature. And now those things are mass manufactured and it's what the people want. Humanity will move on to calling whatever current thing we're manually doing an art.

Re: Thoughts on thinking

#436

Post by fennecbutt »

Tallain wrote: post #205
fennecbutt wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

99% if not 100% of human thought and general output is derivative. Everything we create or do is based on something we've experienced or seen. Try to think of an object that doesn't exist, and isn't based on anything you've ever seen before, a completely new object with no basis in our reality. It's impossible. Writers made elves by adding pointy ears to a human. That's it.

This is an alarmingly reductionist statement that I cannot believe is made in good faith. If it somehow is, it's based on an abundance of ignorance that only highlights the importance of education. Are you genuinely arguing that LLM output is derivative, and human output is derivative, therefore they're equal? Why don't you pop that thesis into ChatGPT and see how it answers.

Oh, is agreement binary? Are thoughts binary?

I didn't realise that by comparing derivative human output to derivative machine output that I was inherently arguing that they are equally derivative at this point in time.

It is true that human output has higher entropy, but that will not be the case forever.

Re: Thoughts on thinking

#437

Post by fennecbutt »

bccdee wrote: post #233
fennecbutt wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

99% if not 100% of human thought and general output is derivative. Everything we create or do is based on something we've experienced or seen. Try to think of an object that doesn't exist, and isn't based on anything you've ever seen before, a completely new object with no basis in our reality. It's impossible. Writers made elves by adding pointy ears to a human. That's it.

No, that's not true. Quick, what's 51 plus 92? Now: Did you think back to a time someone else added these numbers together, or are you doing it yourself, right now, in your head? I'm sure it's not the first time these numbers have ever been summed, but that doesn't matter. You're doing it now, independently. Just because something isn't unique, doesn't make it derivative. We rediscover things every day.

That is the nature of current models. Don't pretend that it will always be this way.

Your argument is moot anyway, how exactly is adding numbers together proving that such a thing isn't derivative?

I add numbers together, because I got taught to in school, because my teachers got taught to, because humans learnt to a very long time ago, because they observed a collection of things of different numbers. Perhaps the first human to count enjoyed an original thought. Or any who did independently, communication is the origin of derivation. And us humans are alllll about communicating.

Adding numbers is not an original thought, not in this context.

Re: Thoughts on thinking

#438

Post by fennecbutt »

bccdee wrote: post #366
treebirg wrote: post #319

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But I do know what numbers are. I've also done addition before, so I know what the steps are. The result of 51 + 92 is derivative from (at least) these two concepts, which derive from others and so on. Maybe I'm stretching the meaning of derivative here, but to me derivative doesn't mean strictly recalling something verbatim.

I do think you're stretching the meaning of derivative. At that point, what can ever be called original? Every idea depends on pre-existing concepts. Even Newton stood on the shoulders of giants.

That's my overarching point. That most of human thought is derivative.

Even emotion, sure you're happy that you ate a tasty food. But you're happy because your body is flooding you with chemicals to reward you for it, as with many humans over time, it's how it was selected.

I'm not saying it's a bad thing. It's just incredibly interesting to me to compare the way I think we act to the way these early models are acting. That's all.

Re: Thoughts on thinking

#439

Post by fennecbutt »

DavidPiper wrote: post #195
fennecbutt wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

99% if not 100% of human thought and general output is derivative. Everything we create or do is based on something we've experienced or seen. Try to think of an object that doesn't exist, and isn't based on anything you've ever seen before, a completely new object with no basis in our reality. It's impossible. Writers made elves by adding pointy ears to a human. That's it.

That is a nonsense definition of creativity. The parent also wasn't suggesting - as far as I can read - that creativity is defined solely in the realm of the "truly novel" (or "isn't based on anything you've ever seen before"). All creativity is a conversation between our own ideas and what already exists. Consider the unused soundtrack to James Cameron's Avatar [0][1], where ethnomusicologists set out to create a ki…

Where was I arguing that human output is not creative at all?

Human creativity is for the most part derivative in some way, that is the nature of it and my point. I was contrasting it to illustrate why I think the idea that machines cannot be creative is wrong. Especially given that current models will only get more complex and nuanced in the future.

I never said that humans cannot be creative because creativity is derivative at any point. We are engaging in another human pastime; tribalism.

Re: Thoughts on thinking

#440

Post by fennecbutt »

jen729w wrote: post #220
fennecbutt wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

99% if not 100% of human thought and general output is derivative. Everything we create or do is based on something we've experienced or seen. Try to think of an object that doesn't exist, and isn't based on anything you've ever seen before, a completely new object with no basis in our reality. It's impossible. Writers made elves by adding pointy ears to a human. That's it.

> Try to think of an object that doesn't exist, and isn't based on anything you've ever seen before, a completely new object with no basis in our reality. It's impossible. Pick up an Iain M. Banks book, my friend.

I have read plenty of his work. If you like his stuff I would recommend the quantum thief trilogy, and the void trilogy. I find many people haven't read them and they're great scifi.
Post reply on HN