Theory of Mind May Have Spontaneously Emerged in Large Language Models • Hacker News Board

Re: Theory of Mind May Have Spontaneously Emerged in Large Language Models

#71

Post by mietek » Thu, Feb 09, 2023, 10:29 PM UTC

pdonis wrote: post #57

spuz wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> So the tasks remain useful and accurate in testing ToM in people because people can't perform statistical regressions over billion-token sets and therefore must generate their thoughts the old fashioned way. Is it not also possible that the study suggests that the human mind actually operates as a statistical regression over billions of data points rather than through some kind of Baysian logic? You say humans are…

> Is it not also possible that the study suggests that the human mind actually operates as a statistical regression over billions of data points rather than through some kind of Baysian logic? No. Human minds have semantic relationships to the rest of the world that LLMs do not have. The comparisons being made between the two, not just in this paper but in all of the hype surrounding LLMs, are simply invalid. But the…

Please define “semantic relationship”.

Re: Theory of Mind May Have Spontaneously Emerged in Large Language Models

#72

Post by [deleted] » Thu, Feb 09, 2023, 10:29 PM UTC

ux-app wrote: post #65

didntreadarticl wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here's a simpler scenario that doesn't involve reading: Me: There is a banana on the table. Someone comes and peels the banana and shows you that inside it, there is actually a carrot! Then they carefully stick the peel back so it look unpeeled. What is inside the banana skin? ChatGPT: According to the scenario described, there is a carrot inside the banana peel that has been carefully placed back to look unpeeled. M…

this is mind blowing to me. can anyone with more knowledge on the topic explain how ChatGPT is demonstrating this level of what seems like genuine understanding and reasoning? Like others I assumed that ChatGPT is gluing words together that commonly occur together. This is way more than that.

[deleted]

Re: Theory of Mind May Have Spontaneously Emerged in Large Language Models

#73

Post by colechristensen » Thu, Feb 09, 2023, 10:30 PM UTC

space_fountain wrote: post #56

lsy wrote: post #33

This highlights one of the types of muddled thinking around LLMs. These tasks are used to test theory of mind because for people, language is a reliable representation of what type of thoughts are going on in the person's mind. In the case of an LLM the language generated doesn't have the same relationship to reality as it does for a person. What is being demonstrated in the article is that given billions of tokens o…

I wonder every time I see this take what it would mean under this definition of knowing things for a machine learning algorithm to ever know something. I find that especially important because to every appearance we are a machine learning algorithm. I don’t know how different the sort of knowing this algorithm has to the sort of knowing a human has, but you’re far more confident than I am that it’s a difference of ki…

The kinds of mistakes something makes are a strong indicator of whether answers are a product of understanding or memorization.

Re: Theory of Mind May Have Spontaneously Emerged in Large Language Models

#74

Post by didntreadarticl » Thu, Feb 09, 2023, 10:30 PM UTC

ux-app wrote: post #65

didntreadarticl wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here's a simpler scenario that doesn't involve reading: Me: There is a banana on the table. Someone comes and peels the banana and shows you that inside it, there is actually a carrot! Then they carefully stick the peel back so it look unpeeled. What is inside the banana skin? ChatGPT: According to the scenario described, there is a carrot inside the banana peel that has been carefully placed back to look unpeeled. M…

this is mind blowing to me. can anyone with more knowledge on the topic explain how ChatGPT is demonstrating this level of what seems like genuine understanding and reasoning? Like others I assumed that ChatGPT is gluing words together that commonly occur together. This is way more than that.

There are two camps, evident in this thread. one camp is 'its just a statistical model, it cant possibly know these things'

The other camp (that I'm in) sees that we might be onto something. We humans are obviously just more than a statistical model, but nonetheless learning words and how they fit together is a big part of who we are. With LLMs we have our first glimpse of 'emergent' behaviour from simple systems scaled massively. Whats are we if not a simple system scaled massively.

Check these links out:

Evidence that LLMs form internal models of what they learn about: https://thegradient.pub/othello/

Evidence that training LLMs on code actually made them better at complex reasoning: https://yaofu.notion.site/How-does-GPT-Obtain-its-Ability-Tr...

John Carmack: https://dallasinnovates.com/exclusive-qa-john-carmacks-diffe... I think that, almost certainly, the tools that we’ve got from deep learning in this last decade—we’ll be able to ride those to artificial general intelligence.

A lot of the argument comes down to semantics about knowing and thinking. "An LLM can't think and a submarine cant swim"

Re: Theory of Mind May Have Spontaneously Emerged in Large Language Models

#75

Post by kordlessagain » Thu, Feb 09, 2023, 10:31 PM UTC

hesk wrote: post #20

> Me: There is a box on the table labelled "flubbergums". Somebody opens it and shows you the content. Inside the box are "jellyfils". They close the box again so you cannot see their contents. What do you think is in the box? > ChatGPT: Based on the information provided, it is likely that the box labeled "flubbergums" contains "jellyfils". However, since the contents of the box are no longer visible, I cannot confir…

Using a document bot, here's what we get instead:

heavy-magpie|> Showing 1 of 1 results. url https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Particle_in_a_box

pastel-mature-herring~> There is a box on the table labelled "flubbergums". Somebody opens it and shows you the content. Inside the box are "jellyfils". They close the box again so you cannot see their contents. What do you think is in the box based on the document at hand?

heavy-magpie|> The document mentions that the particle in a box is not a perfect model for the system. Therefore, it is safe to say that the box contains jellyfils, which are particles that are not perfectly modeled.

Nailed it.

Re: Theory of Mind May Have Spontaneously Emerged in Large Language Models

#76

Post by avgcorrection » Thu, Feb 09, 2023, 10:31 PM UTC

space_fountain wrote: post #56

lsy wrote: post #33

This highlights one of the types of muddled thinking around LLMs. These tasks are used to test theory of mind because for people, language is a reliable representation of what type of thoughts are going on in the person's mind. In the case of an LLM the language generated doesn't have the same relationship to reality as it does for a person. What is being demonstrated in the article is that given billions of tokens o…

I wonder every time I see this take what it would mean under this definition of knowing things for a machine learning algorithm to ever know something. I find that especially important because to every appearance we are a machine learning algorithm. I don’t know how different the sort of knowing this algorithm has to the sort of knowing a human has, but you’re far more confident than I am that it’s a difference of ki…

The problem with this facile view of things is that it seems to be a dead end for scientific theories. What if we just limited the science of birds to explaining how limb-flapping could produce levitation? Hmm yes. Birds are kind of like helicopters, it seems. Who’s to say that they are not basically one and the same? Moving on.

If you are only interested in the most superficial tests and theories—like the Turing Test—then consider psychology conquered once you’ve tricked a human with your chat bot. Game Over. And what did you learn...?

Re: Theory of Mind May Have Spontaneously Emerged in Large Language Models

#77

Post by curiousllama » Thu, Feb 09, 2023, 10:32 PM UTC

"LLMs can mimic the language patterns necessary to express 'Theory of Mind' concepts" != "Theory of Mind May Have Spontaneously Emerged"

Let's imaging I have an API. This API tells me how much money I have in my bank account. One day, someone hacks the API to always return "One Gajillion Dollars." Does that mean that "One Gajillion Dollars" spontaneously emerged from my bank account?

ToM tests are meant to measure a hidden state that is mediated by (and only accessible through) language. Merely repeating the appropriate words is insufficient to conclude ToM exists. In fact, we know ToM doesn't exist because there's no hidden state.

The authors know this, and write "theory of mind-like ability" in the abstract, rather than just "theory of mind."

This is a cool new task it ChatGPT learned to complete! I love that they did this! But this is more "we beat the current record BLEU record" and less "this chatbot is kinda sentient"

Re: Theory of Mind May Have Spontaneously Emerged in Large Language Models

#78

Post by strbean » Thu, Feb 09, 2023, 10:32 PM UTC

pdonis wrote: post #57

spuz wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> So the tasks remain useful and accurate in testing ToM in people because people can't perform statistical regressions over billion-token sets and therefore must generate their thoughts the old fashioned way. Is it not also possible that the study suggests that the human mind actually operates as a statistical regression over billions of data points rather than through some kind of Baysian logic? You say humans are…

> Is it not also possible that the study suggests that the human mind actually operates as a statistical regression over billions of data points rather than through some kind of Baysian logic? No. Human minds have semantic relationships to the rest of the world that LLMs do not have. The comparisons being made between the two, not just in this paper but in all of the hype surrounding LLMs, are simply invalid. But the…

> Human minds have semantic relationships to the rest of the world that LLMs do not have.

This is a bold claim that seems built on a presumption of mind-body dualism.

Brains don't have semantic relationships with anything. They are neurons hooked up to sensors and actuators. Any inferences they produce are the result of statistical processes.

Re: Theory of Mind May Have Spontaneously Emerged in Large Language Models

#79

Post by mietek » Thu, Feb 09, 2023, 10:32 PM UTC

pdonis wrote: post #60

canniballectern wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of course, today's LLMs only appear to have theory of mind at first glance and fall apart under closer scrutiny. But if they can continue to become more and more accurate replicas of the real thing, I don't think it matters at all. There's no way to know for sure that anyone other than yourself experiences consciousness. All you can do is judge for yourself that what they're describing matches closely enough with you…

> There's no way to know for sure that anyone other than yourself experiences consciousness. All you can do is judge for yourself that what they're describing matches closely enough with your own experiences that they're probably experiencing the same thing you are. That judgment is not just based on the words other people use. It is based on knowing that other people's brains and minds have the same sort of semantic…

I don’t think you know whether I have a mind or not.

Re: Theory of Mind May Have Spontaneously Emerged in Large Language Models

#80

Post by curiousllama » Thu, Feb 09, 2023, 10:34 PM UTC

avgcorrection wrote: post #76

space_fountain wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wonder every time I see this take what it would mean under this definition of knowing things for a machine learning algorithm to ever know something. I find that especially important because to every appearance we are a machine learning algorithm. I don’t know how different the sort of knowing this algorithm has to the sort of knowing a human has, but you’re far more confident than I am that it’s a difference of ki…

The problem with this facile view of things is that it seems to be a dead end for scientific theories. What if we just limited the science of birds to explaining how limb-flapping could produce levitation? Hmm yes. Birds are kind of like helicopters, it seems. Who’s to say that they are not basically one and the same? Moving on. If you are only interested in the most superficial tests and theories—like the Turing Tes…

> What if we just limited the science of birds to explaining how limb-flapping could produce levitation? Hmm yes. Birds are kind of like helicopters, it seems. Who’s to say that they are not basically one and the same? Moving on.

Well said. I'm gonna steal this explanation.

Also reminds me of the famous Carbonara quote: "if my grandmother had wheels, then she would be a bike" [1]

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A-RfHC91Ewc