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

Why Are LLMs So Gullible?

amistrongeryet.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 107 posts

Re: Why Are LLMs So Gullible?

#91

Post by famouswaffles »

mg74 wrote: post #76
famouswaffles wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Only the training process of statistical optimization can possibly be described as well understood, and not very much.

The steps are understood well enough to instruct machines to do it, even if the output is to complex for us to comprehend it completely. Not so with thought, intelligence, consciousness, etc.

again, no they aren't. In ML, nobody instructs machines to do anything other than train and find those steps themselves. We have no clue what steps GPT takes when it solves problems.

For a straightforward example, when GPT-4 adds, what algorithm does it perform ? I have no clue, you have no clue and neither does anyone at open ai.

What we do is instruct machines to train. What they get out of training, we have very little idea.

Re: Why Are LLMs So Gullible?

#92

Post by famouswaffles »

chx wrote: post #88
famouswaffles wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You've not quantified anything, nor have you even provided any valid example of these so abundant mystery questions. If it's so easy, come up with one and show us.

If I do then it'll get gobbled up by fake AI and I won't make up one every time ignorant people who can't open an AI textbook demand one from me. Apropos: https://existentialcomics.com/comic/289 You could use that comics to generate a few of these questions.

What a ridiculous excuse.

Leaving aside the fact the chances of your reply being in the training of the next GPT near 0, it certainly won't happen anywhere near fast enough to disprove your point to anyone reading this today.

So you have nothing. Not that i'm surprised.

Re: Why Are LLMs So Gullible?

#93

Post by thfuran »

Alchemista wrote: post #89
thfuran wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Efficiency has absolutely nothing to do with it.

Efficiency has everything to do with it. To run your original thought experiment would likely take more computing capacity than humanity will ever produce with current silicon based processors. It could be that we can "get there" with much rougher approximation, but that is by no means a given. If "getting there" does require a much more complex model that actually involves simulating human neurons with much more acc…

I'm no more suggesting that you actually attempt to build an ANN to run a full quantum simulation of a person and their house than Einstein was suggesting that you go out and board a train that goes the speed of light. The reason it's called a thought experiment instead of a project proposal is that actually doing the thing isn't the point. It's about examining the consequences of a premise.

Re: Why Are LLMs So Gullible?

#94

Post by joquarky »

iforgotpassword wrote: post #55
throwaway240219 wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly correct. Article title would be better as, "Why are users of LLMs so gullible?" Because people implicitly treat AI as if it were conscious, and we keep forgetting that.

Because it still makes sense to reason about them that way, as weird as it may be. It's like the Chinese room problem, even though we know nobody is inside. It's like when people say "our brain thinks that ..." when they talk about something we do subconsciously, or some illusion we fall for. What does that even mean? Is our brain suddenly a detached entity thinking on its own? Then what am I using to think? Yet, eve…

> What does that even mean? Is our brain suddenly a detached entity thinking on its own? Then what am I using to think?

IFS recognizes subpersonalities¹ which is a model which can adequately explain this

[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subpersonality

Re: Why Are LLMs So Gullible?

#95

Post by daveguy »

thfuran wrote: post #93
Alchemista wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Efficiency has everything to do with it. To run your original thought experiment would likely take more computing capacity than humanity will ever produce with current silicon based processors. It could be that we can "get there" with much rougher approximation, but that is by no means a given. If "getting there" does require a much more complex model that actually involves simulating human neurons with much more acc…

I'm no more suggesting that you actually attempt to build an ANN to run a full quantum simulation of a person and their house than Einstein was suggesting that you go out and board a train that goes the speed of light. The reason it's called a thought experiment instead of a project proposal is that actually doing the thing isn't the point. It's about examining the consequences of a premise.

The difference between your thoughts experiment and Einstein's is that Einstein's had some testable implications. Yours is closer to belief in a teacup drifting in deep space.

Re: Why Are LLMs So Gullible?

#96

Post by thfuran »

daveguy wrote: post #95
thfuran wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm no more suggesting that you actually attempt to build an ANN to run a full quantum simulation of a person and their house than Einstein was suggesting that you go out and board a train that goes the speed of light. The reason it's called a thought experiment instead of a project proposal is that actually doing the thing isn't the point. It's about examining the consequences of a premise.

The difference between your thoughts experiment and Einstein's is that Einstein's had some testable implications. Yours is closer to belief in a teacup drifting in deep space.

And what's the unfalsifiable assertion you claim I've made?

Re: Why Are LLMs So Gullible?

#97

Post by nomel »

nomel wrote: post #80
Alchemista wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I feel like you are being deliberately obtuse here. They said "Give it a few years" and linked https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_development_stages . How is this not strongly implying that in a "few years" LLMs will be at a later "level of development" as described in the article they linked.

I think you're not being charitable in the interpretation. It, almost certainly, will be in later stages of emulating human cognition . If not, then AI winter is already here. It's trivial and legitimate to relate capabilities of AI to those in that table. Because, again, emulating human cognition is the stated goal of most AI research happening right now . An AI's capabilities, progressing in that table, does not me…

> An AI's capabilities

Meant this as a product (e.g. ChatGPT).

Re: Why Are LLMs So Gullible?

#98

Post by BazookaMusic »

famouswaffles wrote: post #64
BazookaMusic wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A simple proof that love is not just hormones is that love can last for some time. If it was just a chemical phenomenon why does it happen repeatedly. Why can someone feel love for someone just by bringing to mind the symbol which represents that person? Why can someone feel love by seeing an illustration of someone they love?

How is that a proof of anything? Do you imagine all chemical reactions to be instantaneous with effects that last only a short while ? >Why can someone feel love for someone just by bringing to mind the symbol which represents that person? >Why can someone feel love by seeing an illustration of someone they love? Why would other things triggering hormones and reactions mean it's not just hormones and reactions?

The point is that it is a phenomenon connected with memory and thinking processes. The reaction and release of hormones is part of the phenomenon, but not the entire phenomenon.

Take this in contrast to an allergy for example. Can you trigger an allergy by remembering the food? If you see an illustration of a food you are allergic to, do you get an attack?

A more similar phenomenon instead is a phobia. It is also a release of hormones based on some internal or external stimulus (you can apply all my examples about love). However in a phobia it's even more clear that the phenomenon is based on thinking patterns. Reducing the complexity to saying these are just "hormones and reactions" is the same as saying a computer is "instructions and interrupts". That is to say that a computer has these elements but what makes it work is that there are a bunch of other systems including the humans writing the software that organize these into a functional system.

Re: Why Are LLMs So Gullible?

#99

Post by BazookaMusic »

dist-epoch wrote: post #81
BazookaMusic wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A simple proof that love is not just hormones is that love can last for some time. If it was just a chemical phenomenon why does it happen repeatedly. Why can someone feel love for someone just by bringing to mind the symbol which represents that person? Why can someone feel love by seeing an illustration of someone they love?

Thinking about food makes your mouth salivate. Thinking about someone could release the hormones.

Thus the experience of food is reduced to the release of saliva?

Your point proves that the experience of food is also not just a chemical process which happens in response to food.

Re: Why Are LLMs So Gullible?

#100

Post by chx »

famouswaffles wrote: post #92
chx wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If I do then it'll get gobbled up by fake AI and I won't make up one every time ignorant people who can't open an AI textbook demand one from me. Apropos: https://existentialcomics.com/comic/289 You could use that comics to generate a few of these questions.

What a ridiculous excuse. Leaving aside the fact the chances of your reply being in the training of the next GPT near 0, it certainly won't happen anywhere near fast enough to disprove your point to anyone reading this today. So you have nothing. Not that i'm surprised.

No, the automated plagiarism machines have nothing and I am not obligated to cure your ignorance. Let's continue the conversation after you read an AI textbook, shall we?
Post reply on HN