Comment on I'm looking for an article showing that LLMs don't know how they work internally
theunknownmuncher@lemmy.world 3 weeks agoLOL you didn’t really make the point you thought you did. It isn’t an “improper comparison” (it’s called a false equivalency FYI), because there’s isn’t a real distinction between information and this thing you just made up called “basic action on data”, but anyway have it your way:
Your comment is still exactly like saying an audio pipeline isn’t really playing music because it’s actually just doing basic math.
glizzyguzzler@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 weeks ago
I was channeling the Interstellar docking computer (“improper contact” in such a sassy voice) ;)
There is a distinction between data and an action you perform on data (matrix maths, codec algorithm, etc.). It’s literally completely different.
An audio codec (not a pipeline) is just actually doing math - just like the workings of an LLM. There’s plenty of work to be done after the audio codec decodes the m4a to get to tunes in your ears. Same for an LLM, sandwiching those matrix multiplications that make the magic happen are layers that crunch the prompts and assemble the tokens you see it spit out.
LLMs can’t think, that’s just the fact of how they work. The problem is that AI companies are happy to describe them in terms that make you think they can think to sell their product! I literally cannot be wrong that LLMs cannot think or reason, there’s no room for debate, it’s settled long ago. AI companies will string the LLMs together and let them chew for a while to try make themselves catch when they’re dropping bullshit. It’s still not thinking and reasoning though. They can be useful tools, but LLMs are just tools not sentient or verging on sentient
theunknownmuncher@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
Incorrect. You might want to take an information theory class before speaking on subjects like this.
Correct. No one claimed they are “sentient” (you actually mean “sapient”, not “sentient”, but it’s fine as most people mix those up. And no, LLMs are not sapient either, and sapience has nothing to do with reasoning or logic, you’re just moving the goalpost)
glizzyguzzler@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 weeks ago
It’s wild, we’re just completely talking past each other at this point! I don’t think I’ve ever gotten to a point where I’m like “it’s blue” and someone’s like “it’s gold” so clearly. And like I know enough to know what I’m talking about and that I’m not wrong (unis are not getting tons of grants to see “if AI can think”, no one but fart sniffing AI bros would fund that (see OP’s requested source is from an AI company about their own model), research funding goes towards making useful things not if ChatGPT is really going through it like the rest of us), but you are very confident in yourself as well. Your mention of information theory leads me to believe you’ve got a degree in the computer science field. The basis of machine learning is not in computer science but in stats (math). So I won’t change my understanding based on your claims since I don’t think you deeply know the basis just the application. The focus on using the “right words” as a gotchya bolsters that vibe. I know you won’t change your thoughts based on my input, so we’re at the age-old internet stalemate! Anyway, just wanted you to know why I decided not to entertain what you’ve been saying - I’m sure I’m in the same boat from your perspective ;)
theunknownmuncher@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
loses the argument “we’re at the age-old internet stalemate!” LMAO