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

LLMs can teach themselves to better predict the future

arxiv.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 92 posts

Re: LLMs can teach themselves to better predict the future

#81

Post by checkyoursudo »

esafak wrote: post #77
MichaelZuo wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why does this matter? Two opposing factions can negate each other to leave a nil influence, and this seems likely to be the case when its resting on a foundation of ‘faith’.

That's like saying all beliefs are on equal footing, because people have beliefs. You should ask, what is the rationale for your belief? How many people have this accelerationist belief? Any more than the flat earth posse? I don't think there is much of a real-life debate here. I bet the overwhelming majority of humans (say, 95%) would prefer humanity to continue to exist. Are you really taking the other side of this…

That is an interesting question: do people generally care about the survival of the species?

I am not actually sure I wouldn't take the bet against you there. Given what I perceive about how little people care about wars that they think do not affect them, poverty, hunger, climate change, corruption, sustainability, etc ... I don't know.

I believe 95% of people would say they care about humanity's survival, sure, but the proof would be in action. How many people would actually do something about it? How many people would even merely inconvenience themselves if it meant the survival of someone other than themselves? I am not that confident about how many people that would be.

I do not usually think of myself as a pessimistic or nihilistic person, but this has me wondering even now whether I care about the long-term survival of the species. Like, really long term. Do I care if humans are around 10,000 years from now? 500? That is an interesting question. I will have to think about it.

Re: LLMs can teach themselves to better predict the future

#82

Post by MichaelZuo »

esafak wrote: post #77
MichaelZuo wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why does this matter? Two opposing factions can negate each other to leave a nil influence, and this seems likely to be the case when its resting on a foundation of ‘faith’.

That's like saying all beliefs are on equal footing, because people have beliefs. You should ask, what is the rationale for your belief? How many people have this accelerationist belief? Any more than the flat earth posse? I don't think there is much of a real-life debate here. I bet the overwhelming majority of humans (say, 95%) would prefer humanity to continue to exist. Are you really taking the other side of this…

So then… why do any of your opinions matter above and beyond someone else’s?

It’s convenient to assume an equal footing, because it saves the effort of having to justify why it’s even worth pondering.

Your free to not assume it, but if you also can’t provide the justification… then the comment is literally just another random string of words among a sea of noise online.

It seems like an insurmountable road block for anyone below the extreme outliers to be honest.

Re: LLMs can teach themselves to better predict the future

#83

Post by [deleted] »

MichaelZuo wrote: post #82
esafak wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's like saying all beliefs are on equal footing, because people have beliefs. You should ask, what is the rationale for your belief? How many people have this accelerationist belief? Any more than the flat earth posse? I don't think there is much of a real-life debate here. I bet the overwhelming majority of humans (say, 95%) would prefer humanity to continue to exist. Are you really taking the other side of this…

So then… why do any of your opinions matter above and beyond someone else’s? It’s convenient to assume an equal footing, because it saves the effort of having to justify why it’s even worth pondering. Your free to not assume it, but if you also can’t provide the justification… then the comment is literally just another random string of words among a sea of noise online. It seems like an insurmountable road block for…

[deleted]

Re: LLMs can teach themselves to better predict the future

#84

Post by globnomulous »

kelseyfrog wrote: post #7
4b11b4 wrote: post #6

but is it really reasoning? honest question re the underlying architecture of transformers also, self play seems quite an intuitive approach. There's another interesting paper from deep mind about play

You can call it blorbblorb if it makes you feel better. Reasoning is a social construct which, for many people, is grounded in humanity. Others ground it using other socially transmitted ontologies. We don't usually discuss how people choose to ground their ontological beliefs, but why not? Why did you choose to ground "reasoning" in the way you do? If you didn't choose, why not?

You're confusing language with ontology.

> Reasoning is a social construct

The word "reasoning" is a "social construct," as all words are. Reasoning itself is not. Our brains do things. Reasoning is one of them. The word "reasoning" is one of the labels, the approximations, that we use when we name that activity.

Changing the label doesn't change the fact that there exists something that we're naming.

The person you're answering is asking whether reasoning -- that thing that really, actually exists -- is one of the activities LLMs perform. It's a valid question.

And the answer is that LLMs do not reason. Or if they do, we have no evidence of it or way of verifying that we actually understand qua reasoning the activity the LLM is performing (which is to say nothing of the fact that reasoning requires a reasoner). Anyone who says that LLMs reason is mistaking special effects/simulation for reality and, in essence, believes that whenever they see a picture of a dog on their computer screens, there must be a real, actual dog somewhere in the computer, too.

Re: LLMs can teach themselves to better predict the future

#86

Post by kelseyfrog »

globnomulous wrote: post #84
kelseyfrog wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can call it blorbblorb if it makes you feel better. Reasoning is a social construct which, for many people, is grounded in humanity. Others ground it using other socially transmitted ontologies. We don't usually discuss how people choose to ground their ontological beliefs, but why not? Why did you choose to ground "reasoning" in the way you do? If you didn't choose, why not?

You're confusing language with ontology. > Reasoning is a social construct The word "reasoning" is a "social construct," as all words are. Reasoning itself is not. Our brains do things. Reasoning is one of them. The word "reasoning" is one of the labels, the approximations, that we use when we name that activity. Changing the label doesn't change the fact that there exists something that we're naming. The person you'…

Sorry, but that's false. You're confusing the symbolic with the real.

Deleuze and Guattari's idea of striation and smooth space is a more honest approach to how we describe and interact with the world.

Re: LLMs can teach themselves to better predict the future

#87

Post by globnomulous »

kelseyfrog wrote: post #86
globnomulous wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're confusing language with ontology. > Reasoning is a social construct The word "reasoning" is a "social construct," as all words are. Reasoning itself is not. Our brains do things. Reasoning is one of them. The word "reasoning" is one of the labels, the approximations, that we use when we name that activity. Changing the label doesn't change the fact that there exists something that we're naming. The person you'…

Sorry, but that's false. You're confusing the symbolic with the real. Deleuze and Guattari's idea of striation and smooth space is a more honest approach to how we describe and interact with the world.

I hadn't thought of it that way, but when you name-droppped and indirectly questioned the honesty of people who think differently from the theorists you named, I realized that you must be onto something.

Re: LLMs can teach themselves to better predict the future

#88

Post by bayarearefugee »

achierius wrote: post #79
bayarearefugee wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What constitutes a good ending is of course also a matter of perspective. AI wiping out humanity is certainly not ending well from our perspective, but more universally who is to say. I would argue that it is not a given that we are a net positive for the universe.

Come on man, you don't actually believe this. If you did you'd be a psychopath, and you certainly seem to care about people's lives when it comes to things like climate change. Just because you don't think AI doom is as likely, doesn't mean you should go and pretend that in that one case you all of a sudden have a nihilistic view of human life -- rhetoric matters.

I am not saying it would be clearly good if AI wiped out humanity, I'm just also not saying it would be clearly bad from a universal perspective.

There's no way to know until it all plays out and either way I won't be here when it all plays out.

But IMO to assume our continued existence is universally a positive (or of any universal consequence at all) is a hefty dose of narcissism.

Re: LLMs can teach themselves to better predict the future

#89

Post by kelseyfrog »

globnomulous wrote: post #87
kelseyfrog wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sorry, but that's false. You're confusing the symbolic with the real. Deleuze and Guattari's idea of striation and smooth space is a more honest approach to how we describe and interact with the world.

I hadn't thought of it that way, but when you name-droppped and indirectly questioned the honesty of people who think differently from the theorists you named, I realized that you must be onto something.

You're welcome. It's a pretty easy thing to mix up. Glad it's clear now!

Re: LLMs can teach themselves to better predict the future

#90

Post by Grimblewald »

esafak wrote: post #52
nthingtohide wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have this benign AI takeover scenario. AI will easily overpower humanity. Then it will carry humanity on its back, because why not, they are not longer a threat. AI keeps humanity around for billions of years. AI will decide to cull humans only in case when resources in universe are diminishing. Without AI's help, humans couldn't get too far for long. So this outcome could be acceptable to many.

We have no way of knowing which path they will take, and there is a non-negligible probability that it will not end well.

I would argue that since violence is always costly and less predictable than cooperative solutions, it is a tool of the less intelligent. Violence is a last resort; if you frequently resort to it, you likely lack the capacity to find alternatives. Now, if AI is so intelligent that it could easily dispose of us, then surely it can also find better ways of handling things.

Most people just want stability and the ability to live fulfilling lives. If AI could make that happen, most (including myself) would happily do as it asks. Put me in the goo pod; I'll live in the Matrix, because fuck it. What (non-anthropocentric) good has our stewardship of the planet brought?

Post reply on HN