Live data from Hacker News

Life is more than an engineering problem

lareviewofbooks.org

91–100 of 257 posts

Re: Life is more than an engineering problem

#91
post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree that with current LLMs the error goes the other way; they appear more conscious than they are, compared to, say, crows or octopuses which appear less conscious than they actually are. My point is that "appears conscious" is really the only test there is. In what way is a human that says "that hurts" really feeling pain? What about Stephen Hawking "saying it", what about if he could only communicate through pr…

Hell, people used to say other people of different races don't feel pain, so we're not a great group to ask because of our biases and motivations.

I'm pretty sure that there are still people around who believe that to some degree.

Re: Life is more than an engineering problem

#92

Chiang makes some insightful points, e.g. about what we mean by magic. Then I come to > [LLMs] can get better at reproducing patterns found online, but they don’t become capable of actual reasoning; it seems that the problem is fundamental to their architecture. and wonder how an intelligent person can still think this, can be so absolute about it. What is "actual" reasoning here? If an AI proves a theorem is it only…

Even most intelligent people can hallucinate, we still haven't fixed this problem. There's a lot of training material and bias which leads many to repeat those things "LLM's are just a stochastic parrot, glorified auto complete/google search, Markov chains, just statistics", etc. The thing is, these sentences sound really good and so it's easy to repeat them when you have made up your mind. It's a shortcut.

I feel like at this point we have to separate LLMs and reasoning models too.

I can see the argument against chatGPT4 reasoning.

The reasoning models though I think get into some confusing language but I don't know what else you would call it.

If you say a car is not "running" the way a human runs, you are not incorrect even though a car can "outrun" any human obviously in terms of moving speed on the ground.

To say since a car can't run , it can't move though is obviously completely absurd.

Re: Life is more than an engineering problem

#93
post #34

I agreed with almost all of it until: >My stance on this has probably shifted in a negative direction over time, primarily because of my growing awareness of how often technology is used for wealth accumulation. I don’t think capitalism will solve the problems that capitalism creates, so I’d be much more optimistic about technological development if we could prevent it from making a few people extremely rich. What's…

Wealth is power. When you have enough and the rest don't, it's inevitable you will use it for political power.

This obsession with anti government sentiment that Americans have gives them a blind spot for the fact the power accumulation in the hands of the few is the problem. Not government.

How exactly could you stop so called 'wealth laundering'?

Re: Life is more than an engineering problem

#94
post #56

I'm 100% certain Chiang is wrong about art. I'm a product manager, not an artist, but I write many things as part of my job, and Claude in particular is a better writer than I am. Here's how Claude rewrote that, you can argue whether in this particular instance it did better than I did :-) While I respect Chiang's perspective on AI and art, my experience as a product manager has shown me otherwise - Claude routinely…

I 100% like your own voice more. Don't feel discouraged of using your own voice and style, that's actually a huge part of you that matters more than if the text is 1% more readable.

Re: Life is more than an engineering problem

#95

Chiang makes some insightful points, e.g. about what we mean by magic. Then I come to > [LLMs] can get better at reproducing patterns found online, but they don’t become capable of actual reasoning; it seems that the problem is fundamental to their architecture. and wonder how an intelligent person can still think this, can be so absolute about it. What is "actual" reasoning here? If an AI proves a theorem is it only…

Ted Chiang revealed himself at his NeurIPS "Pluralism and Creativity" workshop to be... a great book author and not much else. His statements during his panels with the other AI researchers proved that he was not up to date on modern AI research.

He's overly sentimental, and so are his books. I wish there were other sci-fi authors that the AI community wanted to contact but after "Arrival" I get it since "Arrival" is the literal wet-dream of many NLP/AI researchers.

Re: Life is more than an engineering problem

#96
post #86
post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What are the examples? I've had several LLM search result summaries contain flat out mistakes and incorrect statements.

I’ll try to dig some up soon (I’m on my phone now). But of course the output contains errors sometimes. So do search engine results. The important thing for difficult questions is whether the right answer (or something pointing toward it) is available _at all_. Of course this assumes you can verify the answers somehow (usually easy with programming questions), but again, search engines have the same limitation.

> But of course the output contains errors sometimes. So do search engine results.

That's not true.

Search engine results are links and (non-AI generated) summaries of existing resources on the web. No search engine returns links to resources it generated as the result of the search query. Those resources can have innacurate information, yes, but the search engine itself does not returns errors.

LLMs output do not contain errors "sometimes". The output of an LLMs is never truthful nor false in itself. In the same way that the next word your keyboard suggests for you to type on a mobile device is never truthful nor false. It's simply the next suggestion based on the context.

These two methods of accessing information very clearly do not have the same limitations. A search engine provide link to specific resources. A LLM generates some approximation of some average of some information.

It's up to intelligent thinking people to decide whether a LLM or a search engine is currently the best way for them to parse through information in search for truth.

Re: Life is more than an engineering problem

#97

Chiang makes some insightful points, e.g. about what we mean by magic. Then I come to > [LLMs] can get better at reproducing patterns found online, but they don’t become capable of actual reasoning; it seems that the problem is fundamental to their architecture. and wonder how an intelligent person can still think this, can be so absolute about it. What is "actual" reasoning here? If an AI proves a theorem is it only…

If I write a book that contains Einstein's theory of relativity by virtue of me copying it, did I create the theory? Did my copying of it indicate anything about my understanding of it? Would you be justified to think the next book I write would have anything of original value? I think what he is trying to say is that LLMs current architecture seems to mainly work by understanding patterns in the existing body of kno…

> But it is clear humans are capable of ...

Its not though, nobody really knows what most of the words in that sentence mean in the technical or algorithmical sense, and hence you can't really say whether llms do or don't possess these skills.

Re: Life is more than an engineering problem

#99

Chiang makes some insightful points, e.g. about what we mean by magic. Then I come to > [LLMs] can get better at reproducing patterns found online, but they don’t become capable of actual reasoning; it seems that the problem is fundamental to their architecture. and wonder how an intelligent person can still think this, can be so absolute about it. What is "actual" reasoning here? If an AI proves a theorem is it only…

If I write a book that contains Einstein's theory of relativity by virtue of me copying it, did I create the theory? Did my copying of it indicate anything about my understanding of it? Would you be justified to think the next book I write would have anything of original value? I think what he is trying to say is that LLMs current architecture seems to mainly work by understanding patterns in the existing body of kno…

> If I write a book that contains Einstein's theory of relativity by virtue of me copying it, did I create the theory? Did my copying of it indicate anything about my understanding of it? Would you be justified to think the next book I write would have anything of original value?

No, but you described a `cp` command, not an LLM.

"Creativity" in the sense of coming up with something new is trivial to implement in computers, and has long been solved. Take some pattern - of words, of data, of thought. Perturb it randomly. Done. That's creativity.

The part that makes "creativity" in the sense we normally understand it hard, isn't the search for new ideas - it's evaluation of those ideas. For an idea to be considered creative, it has to match a very complex... wait for it... pattern.

That pattern - what we call "creative" - has no strict definition. The idea has to be close enough to something we know, so we can frame it, yet different enough from it as to not be obvious, but still not too different, so we can still comprehend it. It has to make sense in relevant context - e.g. a creative mathematical proof has to still be correct (or a creative approach to proving a theorem has to plausibly look like it could possibly work); creative writing still has to be readable, etc.

The core of creativity is this unspecified pattern that things we consider "creative" match. And it so happens that things matching this pattern are a match for pattern "what makes sense for a human to read" in situations where a creative solution is called for. And the latter pattern - "response has to be sensible to a human" - is exactly what the LLM goal function is.

Thus follows that real creativity is part of what LLMs are being optimized for :).

Re: Life is more than an engineering problem

#100
post #8
post #5

Ted Chiang is a master of analogies. It’s absolutely delightful to read his work and wrestle with the philosophical questions he explores. I devour almost everything he puts out, and they give me a much-needed escape from my world of bits and registers. “LLMs are a blurry JPEG of the web” has stuck with me since the piece was published in the early days of ChatGPT. Another good one is his piece on why AI can’t make a…

> master of analogies analogy, in other words, embeddings?

No, analogies and embeddings are not exactly the same. Analogies in language are not a math function.

As Ted Chiang comments on the article, this kind of reasoning ("the brain is like $CURRENT_TECH") is flawed.

Post reply on HN