Even if its just gradient descent based distribution learning and there is no "internal system" (whatever you think that should look like) to support learning the distribution, the question is if that is more than what we are doing or if we are starting to replicate our own mechanisms of learning.
Extremely unfounded claims. See: the root comment of this tree.
This fact is relied upon by for example https://bellard.org/ts_zip/ a lossless compression system that would not work if LLMs were nondeterministic.
In practice most LLM systems use this distribution (along with a “temperature” multiplier) to make a weighted random choice among the tokens, giving the illusion of nondeterminism. But there’s no fundamental reason you couldn’t for example always choose the most likely token, yielding totally deterministic output.
This is an excellent and accessible series going over how transformer systems work if you want to learn more. https://youtu.be/wjZofJX0v4M
In other words, LLMs are not deterministic in just about any real setting. What you said there only compounds with MoE architectures, variable test-time compute allocation, and o3-like sampling.
I would ultimately call the result non-deterministic. You could make it deterministic relatively easily by having a deterministic process for choosing a single token from all of the outputs of the NN (say, always pick the one with the highest weight, and if there are multiple with the same weight, pick the first one in token index order), but no one normally does this, because the results aren't that great per my understanding.
A useful definition of intelligence needs to be measurable, based on inputs/outputs, not internal state. Otherwise you run the risk of dictating how you think intelligence should manifest, rather than what it actually is. The former is a prescription, only the latter is a true definition.
At worst it's an incomplete and ad hoc specification.
More realistically it was never more than an educated guess to begin with, about something that didn't exist at the time, still doesn't appear to exist, is highly subjective, lacks a single broadly accepted rigorous definition to this very day, and ultimately boils down to "I'll know it when I see it".
I'll know it when I see it, and I still haven't seen it. QED
I dunno, that seems like a pretty good distillation of what moving the goalposts is.
> I’ll know it when I see it, and I haven’t seen it. QED
While pithily put, thats not a compelling argument. You feel that LLMs are not intelligent. I feel that they may be intelligent. Without a decent definition of what intelligence is, the entire argument is silly.
An incomplete list, in contrast, is not a full set of goalposts. It is more akin to a declared lower bound.
I also don't think it to applies to the case where the parties are made aware of a change in circumstances and update their views accordingly.
> You feel that LLMs are not intelligent. I feel that they may be intelligent.
Weirdly enough I almost agree with you. LLMs have certainly challenged my notion of what intelligence is. At this point I think it's more a discussion of what sorts of things people are referring to when they use that word and if we can figure out an objective description that distinguishes those things from everything else.
> Without a decent definition of what intelligence is, the entire argument is silly.
I completely agree. My only objection is to the notion that goalposts have been shifted since in my view they were never established in the first place.
Only if you don't understand what "the goalposts" means. The goalpost isn't "pass the turing test", the goalpost is "manage to do all the same kind of intellectual tasks that humans are", nobody has moved that since the start in the quest for AI.
This would mean there’s no definition of intelligence you could tie to a test where humans would be intelligent but LLMs wouldn’t.
A maybe more palatable idea is that having “intelligence” as a binary is insufficient. I think it’s more of an extremely skewed distribution. With how humans are above the rest, you didn’t have to nail the cutoff point to get us on one side and everything else on the other. Maybe chimpanzees and dolphins slip in. But now, the LLMs are much closer to humans. That line is harder to draw. Actually not possible to draw it so people are on one side and LLMs on the other.
I don't mean to claim that it isn't possible, just that I'm not clear why we should assume that it is or that there would be an obvious way of going about it.
Is it necessarily the case that you could discern general intelligence via a test with fixed structure, known to all parties in advance, carried out via a synthesized monotone voice? I'm not saying "you definitely can't do that" just that I don't see why we should a priori assume it to be possible.
Now that likely seems largely irrelevant and out in the weeds and normally I would feel that way. But if you're going to suppose that we can't cleanly differentiate LLMs from humans then it becomes important to ask if that's a consequence of the LLMs actually exhibiting what we would consider general intelligence versus an inherent limitation of the modality in which the interactions are taking place.
Personally I think it's far more likely that we just don't have very good tests yet, that our working definition of "general intelligence" (as well as just "intelligence") isn't all that great yet, and that in the end many humans who we consider to exhibit a reasonable level of such will nonetheless fail to pass tests that are based solely on an isolated exchange of natural language.
Note that functional illiteracy is not some niche phenomenon, it's a huge problem in many school systems. In my own country (Romania), while the rate of illiteracy is something like <1% of the populace, the rate of functional illiteracy is estimated to be as high as 45% of those finishing school.
Various chat bots have long been able to pass more limited versions of a Touring test. The most extreme constraint allows for simply replaying a canned conversation which with a helpful human assistant makes it indistinguishable from a human. But exploiting limitations on a testing format doesn’t have anything to do with testing for intelligence.
Go on. We are listening.
Can you give your definition of AI? Also what is the "generally accepted baseline definition for what crosses the threshold of intelligent behavior"?
Please tell us what that "baseline definition" is.
Be that as it may, a core trait is very different from a generally accepted threshold. What exactly is the threshold? Which environments are you referring to? How is it being measured? What goals are they?
You may have quantitative and unambiguous answers to these questions, but I don't think they would be commonly agreed upon.
I applaud the bravery of trying to one shot a definition of intelligence, but no intelligent being acts without previous experience or input. If you're talking about in-sample vs out of sample, LLMs do that all the time. At some point in the conversation, they encounter something completely new and react to it in a way that emulates an intelligent agent.
What really makes them tick is language being a huge part of the intelligence puzzle, and language is something LLMs can generate at will. When we discover and learn to emulate the rest, we will get closer and closer to super intelligence.
Training to a specific task and getting better is completely orthogonal to generalized search and application of priors. Humans do a mix of both search of the operations and pattern matching of recognizing the difference between start and stop state. That is because their "algorithm" is so general purpose. And we have very little idea how the two are combined efficiently.
At least this is how I interpreted the paper.
Deep neural networks are definitely performing generalization at a certain level that beats humans at translation or Go, just not at his ARC bar. He may not think it's good enough, but it's still generalization whether he likes it or not.
Generalization has a specific meaning in the context of machine learning.
The AlphaGo Zero model learned advanced strategies of the game, starting with only the basic rules of the game, without being programmed explicitly. That is generalization.
The trouble with this is that it only ever "generalizes" approximately as far as the person configuring the training run (and implementing the simulation and etc) ensures that it happens. In which case it seems analogous to an explicitly programmed algorithm to me.
Even if we were to accept the training phase as a very limited form of generalization it still wouldn't apply to the output of that process. The trained LLM as used for inference is no longer "learning".
The point I was trying to make with the chess engine was that it doesn't seem that generalization is required in order to perform that class of tasks (at least in isolation, ie post-training). Therefore, it should follow that we can't use "ability to perform the task" (ie beat a human at that type of board game) as a measure for whether or not generalization is occurring.
Hypothetically, if you could explain a novel rule set to a model in natural language, play a series of several games against it, and following that it could reliably beat humans at that game, that would indeed be a type of generalization. However my next objection would then be, sure, it can learn a new turn based board game, but if I explain these other five tasks to it that aren't board games and vary widely can it also learn all of those in the same way? Because that's really what we seem to mean when we say that humans or dogs or dolphins or whatever possess intelligence in a general sense.
Generalization is the ability for a model to perform well on new unseen data within the same task that it was trained for. It's not about the training process itself.
Suppose I showed you some examples of multiplication tables, and you figured out how to multiply 19 * 42 without ever having seen that example before. That is generalization. You have recognized the underlying pattern and applied it to a new case.
AlphaGo Zero trained on games that it generated by playing against itself, but how that data was generated is not the point. It was able to generalize from that information to learn deeper principles of the game to beat human players. It wasn't just memorizing moves from a training set.
> However my next objection would then be, sure, it can learn a new turn based board game, but if I explain these other five tasks to it that aren't board games and vary widely can it also learn all of those in the same way? Because that's really what we seem to mean when we say that humans or dogs or dolphins or whatever possess intelligence in a general sense.
This is what LLMs have already demonstrated - a rudimentary form of AGI. They were originally trained for language translation and a few other NLP tasks, and then we found they have all these other abilities.
By that logic a chess engine can generalize in the same way that AlphaGo Zero does. It is a black box that has never seen the vast majority of possible board positions. In fact it's never seen anything at all because unlike an ML model it isn't the result of an optimization algorithm (at least the old ones, back before they started incorporating ML models).
If your definition of "generalize" depends on "is the thing under consideration an ML model or not" then the definition is broken. You need to treat the thing being tested as a black box, scoring only based on inputs and outputs.
Writing the chess engine is analogous to wiring up the untrained model, the optimization algorithm, and the simulation followed by running it. Both tasks require thoughtful work by the developer. The finished chess engine is analogous to the trained model.
> They were originally trained for ...
I think you're in danger here of a definition that depends intimately on intent. It isn't clear that they weren't inadvertently trained for those other abilities at the same time. Moreover, unless those additional abilities to be tested for were specified ahead of time you're deep into post hoc territory.
We are talking about a very specific technical term in the context of machine learning.
An explicitly programmed chess engine does not generalize, by definition. It doesn't learn from data. It is an explicitly programmed algorithm.
I recommend you go do some reading about machine learning basics.
As far as metrics of intelligence go, the algorithm is a black box. We don't care how it works or how it was constructed. The only thing we care about is (something like) how well it performs across an array of varied tasks that it hasn't encountered before. That is to say, how general the black box is.
Notice that in the case of typical ML algorithms the two usages are equivalent. If the approach generalizes (from training) then the resulting black box would necessarily be assessed as similarly general.
So going back up the thread a ways. Someone quotes Chollet as saying that LLMs can't generalize. You object that he sets the bar too high - that, for example, they generalize just fine at Go. You can interpret that using either definition. The result is the same.
As far as measuring intelligence is concerned, how is "generalizes on the task of Go" meaningfully better than a procedural chess engine? If you reject the procedural chess engine as "not intelligent" then it seems to me that you must also reject an ML model that does nothing but play Go.
> An explicitly programmed chess engine does not generalize, by definition. It doesn't learn from data. It is an explicitly programmed algorithm.
Following from above, I don't see the purpose of drawing this distinction in context since the end result is the same. Sure, without a training task you can't compare performance between the training run and something else. You could use that as a basis to exclude entire classes of algorithms, but to what end?
ML generalization is not the same as "generalness".
The model learns from data to infer strategies for its task (generalization). This is a completely different paradigm to an explicitly programmed rules engine which does not learn and cannot generalize.
Maybe you should stick to a single definition of "generalization" and make that definition clear before you accuse people of needing to read ML basics.
What do you mean here? The trained model, the inference engine, is the one that makes an LLM for "a lot of people".
> they certainly can understand natural language sequences that are not present in their training data
Keeping the trained model as LLM in mind, I think learning a language includes generalization and is typically achieved by a human, so I'll try to formulate:
Can a trained LLM model learn languages that hasn't been in its training set just by chatting/prompting? Given that any Korean texts were excluded from the training set, could Korean be learned? Does that even work with languages descending from the same language family (Spanish in the training set but Italian should be learned)?
Great, now there are two of you.
This is the embodiment argument - that intelligence requires the ability to interact with its environment. Far from being generally accepted, it's a controversial take.
Could Stephen Hawking achieve goals in a wide range of environments without help?
And yet it's still generally accepted that Stephen Hawking was intelligent.
There exists a generally accepted baseline definition for what crosses the threshold of intelligent behavior. We shouldn't seek to muddy this.
EDIT: Generally its accepted that a core trait of intelligence is an agent’s ability to achieve goals in a wide range of environments. This means you must be able to generalize, which in turn allows intelligent beings to react to new environments and contexts without previous experience or input.
Nothing I'm aware of on the market can do this. LLMs are great at statistically inferring things, but they can't generalize which means they lack reasoning. They also lack the ability to seek new information without prompting.
The fact that all LLMs boil down to (relatively) simple mathematics should be enough to prove the point as well. It lacks spontaneous reasoning, which is why the ability to generalize is key