But of course this is only a website, where there are in any case no drinks of any sort to go flying for any reason, and where such an ill-considered thing to say can receive a more reasoned response like this, instead.
It is, though, interesting to me that you see someone behave in a way you aren't expecting and don't quite know how to wrap your head around - no blame; it's a relatively common experience in my vicinity, though normal people typically enjoy it much more than those here - and your immediate recourse is to assume it must have been generated by AI. That's interesting indeed, and I greatly appreciate you sharing it.
But you sound self important and a bit unhinged. It’s not that no one here can wrap their heads around such behaviour. It’s that your comments sounds like a troll response but could also be real.
Are you okay? Would you like to sit down? Do you want some water?
Was this intentional sarcasm?
But no, I've meant every word I wrote this evening here, just as I do every other word I say or write, ever. Sometimes those words are sarcastic! In such cases there is rarely any doubt.
> Don't feed egregious comments by replying; flag them instead. If you flag, please don't also comment that you did.
Of course I disagree with "egregious," did it need saying. After an insult like that, I promise you, no one in my bar would consider I had acted egregiously at all. But I admit it is a surprise to see you violate the site's discussion guidelines, in the very effort to enforce them.
Did I miss something?
As I said in my opening clause here, I fit that description exactly, and "'real' AI," as my original interlocutor would have it, sounds nothing like me.
The insult arises from the fact that "'real' AI" sounds nothing particularly like anyone, because it isn't any one. This is why it keeps driving people insane: there are cognitive vulnerabilities here which, for most humans, have until a couple of years ago been about as realistic to need to worry about as a literal alien invasion.
To a human, being compared with something which can only pretend to humanity - and that not at all well! - is an insult. It should be an insult, too. Anyone is welcome to try and fail to convince me otherwise.
While it wasn't a great signal it was a decent one since no one bothered with garbage posts to phrase it nicely like that.
Now any old prompt can become what at first glance is something someone spent time thinking about even if it is just slop made to look nice.
This doesn't mean anything AI is bad, just that if AI made it look nice that isn't inductive of care in the underlying content.
You've just had it exposed that it is easy to write very good-sounding slop. I really don't think the LLMs invented that.
Sure some people could write well but didn't have a clue but they failed to maintain interest since once you realized the author was no good you bounced once you saw their styled blog.
Now they don't care as they only want the one view and likely won't even bother with more posts at the same site.
I dont understand these takes. The opposite is true - humans good at writing who care about writing never produced these kind of texts.
People who dont care about writing, but need to crank up a lot of words would occasionally produce writing like that. Human slop existed before ai, but it was not the thing produced by people who write well and care.
AI created unprompted the eloquent speech it uses or that AI stole the unpopular style of eloquent speech from people who didn't know what they were talking about.
Neither of which is true because you are mistaking shit posts on social media as what everyone is talking about when discussing "AI posts".
I don't terribly care about replies or other short messages in this context. Wasting 30 seconds isn't worth complaining about.
But wasting 15 minutes trying to build up a mental model of a proposed solution only to realize it never existed is another thing entirely.
I still have hope for the former. In fact, I think I might have figured out how to make it happen. Of course, if it works, the result won't be stubborn and monotone..
Quibble: That can be read as "it's approximating the process humans use to make data", which I think is a bit reaching compared to "it's approximating the data humans emit... using its own process which might turn out to be extremely alien."
Then again, whatever process we're using, evolution found it in the solution space, using even more constrained search than we did, in that every intermediary step had to be non-negative on the margin in terms of organism survival. Yet find it did, so one has to wonder: if it was so easy for a blind, greedy optimizer to random-walk into human intelligence, perhaps there are attractors in this solution space. If that's the case, then LLMs may be approximating more than merely outcomes - perhaps the process, too.
That’s one giant leap you got there.
That the probably that intelligent life exists in the universe is 1, says nothing about that ease, or otherwise, with which it came about.
By all scientific estimates, it took a very long time and faced a very many hurdles, and by all observational measures exists no where else.
Or, what did you mean by easy?
We know how long it took. We have a good idea when life started, and for almost all its history, it was single-cellular. Multi-cellular life is relatively fresh, and on evolutionary time scales, the progression from first eukaryotes to something resembling a basic nervous systems to basic brains to humans, was fairly quick. We have many examples of animals alive today from every part of the progression, and we know they actively use it. We know how natural selection works, that it makes small moves, and that each increment has to be net non-negative in terms of fitness (at least averaging out over populations) - otherwise it would die out instead of accumulating.
All that adds up to, yes, it's surprising evolution stumbled on our level of intelligence so easily.
If you’re going to get about claiming to know how evolution works, at least know how evolution works:
Relative to all non-humans.
I wouldn't be surprised if someone can get a dog to (technically) pass a GCSE (British highschool) exam (not full subject just exam) for a language other than English, because one learned a thousand words and that might just technically be enough fot a British student to pass a French GCSE listening test.
But nobody sane ever hired a non human animal to solve a problem that humans consider intellectually challenging.
Indeed, it would be very surprising if multiple species had exactly the same intelligence. It's more likely there this variable samples some distribution. Of course the species at the top can set the threshold so that all other species don't meet it, if they feel like declaring themselves uniquely intelligent. But that's not very useful.
> Driving is still an example of a case where humans hold the peak performance.
Other great apes can drive too.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RZ_0ImDYrPY
I think it's very hard to look at this video and not recognize that orangutans are intelligent
As can dogs. However, I said "peak".
Because the training process of LLMs is so thoroughly mathematicalised, it feels very different from the world of humans, but in many ways it's just a model of the same kinds of things we're used to.
To me, this sentence contradicts the sentence before it. What would you say neural networks are then? Conscious?
Because AI is not intelligent, it doesn't "know" what it previously output even a token ago. People keep saying this, but it's quite literally fancy autocorrect. LLMs traverse optimized paths along multi-dimensional manifolds and trick our wrinkly grey matter into thinking we're being talked to. Super powerful and very fun to work with, but assuming a ghost in the shell would be illusory.
Of course it knows what it output a token ago, that's the whole point of attention and the whole basis of the quadratic curse.
It doesn't know anything. It has a bunch of weights that were updated by the previous stuff in the token stream. At least our brains, whatever they do, certainly don't function like that.
To you it might be obvious our brains are different from a network of weights being reconfigured as new information comes in; to me it's not so clear how they differ. And I do not feel I know the meaning of the word "know" clearly enough to establish whether something that can emit fluent text about a topic is somehow excluded from "knowing" about it through its means of construction.
it knows the past tokens because theyre part of the input for predicting the next token. its part of the model architecture that it knows it.
if that isnt knowing, people dont know how to walk, only how to move limbs, and not even that, just a bunch of neurons firing
Similarly, the repair manual cannot reason about novel circumstances, or apply logic to fill in gaps. LLMs quite obviously can - even if you have to reword that sentence slightly.
Holy cow, there's an epidemic of stupid in this thread.
Every time you recall a memory it is modified, every time you verbalise a memory it is modified even more so.
Eye-witness accounts are notoriously unreliable, people who witness the same events can have shockingly differing versions.
Memories are modified when new information, real or fabricated, is added.
It’s entirely possible to convince people to recall events that never occurred.
Which of your memories are you certain are of real occurrences, or memories of dreams?
These are all provable, proven facts.
Who exactly is the subject in this phrase?
If you practice mindfulness meditation, you will come to realize it's not so simple.
But we don't appear to have entirely done that yet. It's just curious to me that the linguistic structure is there while the "intelligence", as you call it, is not.
Not necessarily. You can check this yourself by building a very simple Markov Chain. You can then use the weights generated by feeding it Moby Dick or whatever, and this gap will be way more obvious. Generated sentences will be "grammatically" correct, but semantically often very wrong. Clearly LLMs are way more sophisticated than a home-made Markov Chain, but I think it's helpful to see the probabilities kind of "leak through."
Nobody knows what they are saying either, the brain is just (some form) of a neural net that produces output which we claim as our own. In fact most people go their entire life without noticing this. The words I am typing right now are just as mysterious to me as the words that pop on screen when an LLM is outputting.
I feel confident enough to disregard duelists (people who believe in brain magic), that it only leaves a neural net architecture as the explanation for intelligence, and the only two tools that that neural net can have is deterministic and random processes. The same ingredients that all software/hardware has to work with.
I'm a dualist, but I promise no to duel you :) We might just have some elementary disagreements, then. I feel like I'm pretty confident in my position, but I do know most philosophers generally aren't dualists (though there's been a resurgence since Chalmers).
> the brain is just (some form) of a neural net that produces output
We have no idea how our brain functions, so I think claiming it's "like X" or "like Y" is reaching.
We don't know the architecture or algorithms, but we know it abides by physics and through that know it also abides by computational theory.
Our brains just make words in the same way we catch a tune in our heads.
Then we are culturally conditioned to claim ownership over them and justify them post-hoc (i.e., the ego).
As to what the experience maps to, I think the simplest answer is that our phenomenal experiences are encoded as structures in our brain, but that's not necessary to understanding the difference between words that describe experiences and experiences themselves.
In the case of the brain the encoding is such that various functions "fall out of" it, like being able to relate experiences, etc.
There's no magic proposed here, this is a physicalist functionalist view.
Nothing about this prevents a computer from being sentient. As I said, none of this even matters. The key premise is that LLMs are trained on language and not experiences. Unless you believe that a description of an experience is identical to the phenomenal experience, then we agree on the key premise. Do you think that they are identical?
It's a difficult thing to produce a body of text that conveys a particular meaning, even for simple concepts, especially if you're seeking brevity. The editing process is not in the training set, so we're hoping to replicate it simply by looking at the final output.
How effectively do you suppose model training differentiates between low quality verbiage and high quality prose? I think that itself would be a fascinatingly hard problem that, if we could train a machine to do, would deliver plenty of value simply as a classifier.
If it contains the entire corpus of recorded human knowledge…
And most of everything is shit…
You have no idea what you're talking about. I mean, literally no idea, if you truly believe that.
I suspect that's because human language is selected for meaningful phrases due to being part of a process that's related to predicting future states of the world. Though it might be interesting to compare domains of thought with less precision to those like engineering where making accurate predictions is necessary.
I wonder if these LLMs are succumbing to the precocious teacher's pet syndrome, where a student gets rewarded for using big words and certain styles that they think will get better grades (rather than working on trying to convey ideas better, etc).
The notorious "it's not X, it's Y" pattern is somewhat rare from actual humans, but it's catnip for the humans providing the feedback.
Train on a thousand tasks with a thousand human evaluators and you have trained a thousand times on 'affect a human' and only once on any given task.
By necessity, you will get outputs that make lots of sense in the space of general patterns that affect people, but don't in the object level reality of what's actually being said. The model has been trained 1000x more on the former.
Put another way: the framing is hyper-sensical while the content is gibberish.
This is a very reliable tell for AI generated content (well, highly RL'd content, anyway).
I don't really understand why this type of pattern occurs, where the later words in a sentence don't properly connect to the earlier ones in AI-generated text.
"The probability just moves" should, in fluent English, be something like "the model just selects a different word". And "no warning appears" shouldn't be in the sentence at all, as it adds nothing that couldn't be better said by "the model neither refuses nor equivocates".
I wish I better understood how ingesting and averaging large amounts of text produced such a success in building syntactically-valid clauses and such a failure in building semantically-sensible ones. These LLM sentences are junk food, high in caloric word count and devoid of the nutrition of meaning.