When you lose the ability to write, you also lose some of your ability to think

Re:When you lose the ability to write, you also lose some of... by bayindirh on Thursday May 11, 2023 @04:11AM (#35899286)

If convincingly arguing about something was the only thing we needed for proving correctness, we wouldn't have the scientific method.

Or, if word order built the meaning and it's devoid of the character itself, we wouldn't be praising authors for their character building skills and embedding things not written or spoken into their stories, regardless of the medium it's presented.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:When you lose the ability to write, you also lose some of... by pbhjpbhj on Thursday May 11, 2023 @04:46AM (#35899507)

And your proof?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:When you lose the ability to write, you also lose some of... by orbital-decay on Thursday May 11, 2023 @08:25AM (#35901107)

To apply the scientific method and prove correctness, you need to define the subject first. Meaning is ill-defined, just like consciousness, intelligence, and others. LLMs can clearly grasp higher order abstractions and concepts just by reordering the words, which makes many people argue that being a sentence builder is enough to be intelligent, as they also received most of their intelligence from the same source (words written by someone else - social intelligence).

"Honesty" and other forms of self-introspection is just a high level construct which current models aren't trained for, and likely not a fundamental issue with being a stochastic parrot.

[ Parent | on HN ]