51–60 of 77 posts
Apple's tune will completely change the second they get a leading LLM - Look at all the super important and useful things you can do with "Apple General Intelligence"!
No, it wont. This comment essentially says science doesnt matter for anyone, only whether or not they're leading in marketing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Does that mean those LLMs have gotten consciousness and emotions? No. Is this a belief statement, or a provable one?
I think it is clearly true that it doesn't show that they have consciousness and emotions. The problem is that people assume that failing to show that they do means that they don't. It's very hard to show that something doesn't have consciousness. Try and conclusively prove that a rock does not have consciousness.
I think it's even hard to conclusively prove that LLMs don't have any emotions. They can definitely express emotions (typically don't, but largely because they're trained/tuned to avoid the expression of emotions). Now, are those fake? Maybe, most likely even... but not "clearly" (or provably) so.
Apple's tune will completely change the second they get a leading LLM - Look at all the super important and useful things you can do with "Apple General Intelligence"!
No, it wont. This comment essentially says science doesnt matter for anyone, only whether or not they're leading in marketing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
People confuse performance and internal presentation. A simple calculator is vastly better as adding numbers than any human. An chess engine will rival any human grand master. No one would say that this got us closer to AGI. We could absolutely see LLMs that produce poetry that humans can not tell apart or even prefer to human made poetry. We could have LLMs that are perfectly able to convince humans that they have c…
>The question of consciousness is based on what is going on in the inside, how the reasoning happening and not the output. But we don’t really understand how the reasoning is happening in humans. Tests show that our subconscious, completely outside out conscious understanding, makes decisions before we perceive that we consciously decide something [1]. Our consciousness is the output, but we don’t really know what is…
An important standard for any scientific theory or hypothesis is to be falsifiable . Good old Russell's teapot. We can't disprove that that a small teapot too small to be seen by telescopes, orbits the Sun somewhere in space between the Earth and Mars. So should we assume it is true? No the burden of proof lies on those that make the claim.
So yes, I could not 100 percent disprove that certain LLM's don't show signs of consciousness but that is reversing the burden of proof. Those that make the claims that LLM's are capable of suffering, that they show signs of consciousness need to deliver. If they can't, it is reasonable to assume they are full of shit.
People here accuse me to be scholastic and too philosophical but the the reverse is true. Yes, we barely know how human brains work and how consciousness evolved but whoever doesn't see the qualitative difference between a human being and an LLM really needs to touch grass.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You should try playing with one of the toys. It's not at all difficult to move 7 of them. It's not necessary to use a stack. If you have a goal, you can work "top down", with nothing held in memory. All you need to know to begin the move is whether you're moving an odd number of discs (in which case, the first move will be onto the target peg) or an even number (in which case it will be onto the third peg).
Yes, I'm aware of the iterative solution, which is why I explicitly mentioned the recursive one. They tried to give the algorithm description to the LLMs, but they also used the recursive solution (see page 25 of the paper).
If you ask someone how the puzzle works, they're overwhelmingly likely to tell you:
"To move disc 7, first you move discs 1-6 to the third peg, then you move disc 7[, and then you can put discs 1-6 back on top of it]."
This is an explicitly recursive statement of the solution. But the implementation is just that you count down from 7 to 1 while toggling which peg is "the third peg". You can optimize that further by dividing 7 by 2 and taking the remainder, but even if you don't do that, you're using constant space.
What would a human be doing (or thinking) differently, if they were using the recursive algorithm?
Has anyone come up with a definition of AGI where humans are near-universally capable of GI? These articles seem to be slowly pushing the boundaries past the point where slower humans are disbarred from intelligence. Many years ago I bumped in to Towers of Hanoi in a computer game and failed to solve it algorithmicly, so I suppose I'm lucky I only work a knowledge job rather than an intelligence-based one.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>The question of consciousness is based on what is going on in the inside, how the reasoning happening and not the output. But we don’t really understand how the reasoning is happening in humans. Tests show that our subconscious, completely outside out conscious understanding, makes decisions before we perceive that we consciously decide something [1]. Our consciousness is the output, but we don’t really know what is…
My point was we can can't prove that LLM's have consciousness. Yes, the reverse is also true. It is possible that we wouldn't really be able to tell if a AI gained consciousness as that might look very differently than we expect. An important standard for any scientific theory or hypothesis is to be falsifiable . Good old Russell's teapot. We can't disprove that that a small teapot too small to be seen by telescopes,…
In the next breath: "anyone who disagrees with me is a loser."
> Those that make the claims that LLM's are capable of suffering, that they show signs of consciousness need to deliver. If they can't, it is reasonable to assume they are full of shit.
Replace LLM with any marginalized group. Black people, Jews, etc. I can easily just use this to excuse any heinous crime I want - because you cannot prove that you aren't a philosophical zombie to me.
Defaulting to cruelty in the face of unfalsifiablility is absurd.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I think a human will struggle to solve Hanoi using the recursive algorithm for even 6 disks, even given pen and paper. Why? The whole point of the recursive algorithm is that it doesn't matter how many discs you're working with. The ordinary children's toys that implement the puzzle are essentially always sold with more than 6 discs. https://www.amazon.com/s?k=towers+of+hanoi
The recursive solution has a stack depth proportional to the number of disks. That's three pieces (two pegs and how many disks to move) of data for each recursive call, so for 6 disks the "stack" will contain up to around 15 values, which is generally higher than an unaided human will be able to track. In addition, 64-256 moves is quite a lot and I suspect people will generally lose focus before completing them.
It seems pretty clear to me that learning how to go about following an arbitrary set of rules is a part of general intelligence. There are lots of humans who have learned this skill, and many (mostly children) who have not. If the AI has failed to learn this ability during its extensive training, and critically if it cannot be taught this ability as a human could, then it's certainly not "generally intelligent" to anywhere near the human degree.
The Apple paper does not look at its own data — the model outputs become short past some thresholds because the models reflectively realize they do not have the context to respond in the steps as requested, and suggest a Python program instead, just as a human would. One of the penalized environments is proven impossible to solve in the literature for n>6, seemingly unaware to the authors. I consider this and more th…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
My point was we can can't prove that LLM's have consciousness. Yes, the reverse is also true. It is possible that we wouldn't really be able to tell if a AI gained consciousness as that might look very differently than we expect. An important standard for any scientific theory or hypothesis is to be falsifiable . Good old Russell's teapot. We can't disprove that that a small teapot too small to be seen by telescopes,…
In one breath: scientific vigor required for your opposition. In the next breath: "anyone who disagrees with me is a loser." > Those that make the claims that LLM's are capable of suffering, that they show signs of consciousness need to deliver. If they can't, it is reasonable to assume they are full of shit. Replace LLM with any marginalized group. Black people, Jews, etc. I can easily just use this to excuse any he…
This is so flatly ridiculous of an analogy that it becomes racist itself. Maybe the bread I eat is conscious and feels pain (the ancient Manichaens thought so!). Are you know going to refrain from eating bread in case it causes suffering? You can't prove bread doesn't feel pain, you might be "defaulting to cruelty"!