but it’s been demonstrated that they do have a level of understanding.
Citation needed
Comment on AI trained on AI garbage spits out AI garbage.
CeeBee_Eh@lemmy.world 3 months agoI know you are, but the argument that an LLM doesn’t understand context is incorrect. It’s not human level understanding, but it’s been demonstrated that they do have a level of understanding.
And to be clear, I’m not talking about consciousness or sapience.
CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 3 months ago
CeeBee_Eh@lemmy.world 3 months ago
Here you go
CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 3 months ago
A better mathematical system of storing words does not mean the LLM understands any of them. It just has a model that represents the relation between words that it uses.
CeeBee_Eh@lemmy.world 3 months ago
That’s a bad analogy, because the calculator wasn’t trained using an artificial neural network literally designed by studying biological brains (aka biological neutral networks).
And “understand” doesn’t equate to consciousness or sapience. For example, it is entirely and factually correct to state that an LLM is capable of reasoning. That’s not even up for debate. The accuracy of an LLM’s reasoning capability is one of the fundamental benchmarks used for evaluating its quality.
But that doesn’t mean it’s “thinking” in the way most people consider.
lvxferre@mander.xyz 3 months ago
Emphasis mine. I am talking about the textual output. I am not talking about context.
Additionally, your obnoxiously insistent comparison between LLMs and human beings boils down to a red herring.
Not wasting my time further with you.
[For others who might be reading this: sorry for the blatantly rude tone but I got little to no patience towards people who distort what others say, like the one above.]
CeeBee_Eh@lemmy.world 3 months ago
My original reply was meant to be tongue-in-cheek, but I guess I forgot about Poe’s law. I’m not a layman, for the record. I’ve worked with AI for over a decade
Ditto. Have a nice day.