Not at all. Btw, Autists reason entirely without words/language. Neurotypicals are capable of that too, but it’s more convenient for them to bridge over words in conscious reasoning.
Comment on Major shifts at OpenAI spark skepticism about impending AGI timelines
Petter1@lemm.ee 1 month agoAnd how does reasoning work exactly in the human body? Isn’t it LLM/LAM working together with hormones? How do you know that humans aren’t just doing something similar? Your mind tricks you about a lot of things you experience, how can you be sure, your "reasoning” is just sorta LLM in disguise?
MonkderVierte@lemmy.ml 1 month ago
Petter1@lemm.ee 1 month ago
Well, maybe I should have written "neural network” instead of LLM/LAM… Our brains, like LLM work by hardening paths which the data goes through the nodes. In LLM we simulate the chemical properties of them using math. And we have already prototype of chips that work with lab grown brain tissue that show very efficient training capabilities in machine learning (it already plys pong) 🤷🏻♀️ think about that how you want
MentalEdge@sopuli.xyz 1 month ago
In LLM we simulate the chemical properties of the neurones using math.
No, we don’t. A machine learning node accepts inputs, which it processes into one or multiple outputs. But literally no part of how the actual neuron functions is based on or limited to what we THINK human neurons do.
And we have already prototype of chips that work with lab grown brain tissue that show very efficient training capabilities in machine learning (it already plays pong)
Using actual biological neurons for computing is a completely separate field of study with almost no overlap with machine learning.
Stop pulling shit out your ass.
LANIK2000@lemmy.world 1 month ago
Language models are literally incapable of reasoning beyond what is present in the dataset or the prompt. Try giving it a known riddle and change it so it becomes trivial, for example “With a boat, how can a man and a goat get across the river?”, despite it being a one step solution, it’ll still try to shove in the original answer and often enough not even solve it. Best part, if you then ask it to explain it’s reasoning (not tell it what it did wrong, that’s new information you provide, ask it why it did what it did), it’ll completely shit it self. There’s no evidence at all they have any cognitive capacity.
I even managed to break it once through normal conversation, something happened in my life that was unique enough for the dataset and thus was incomprehensible to the AI. It just wasn’t able to follow the events, no matter how many times I explained.
Petter1@lemm.ee 5 weeks ago
Maybe the grown up human LLM that keeps learning 24/7 and is evolved in thousands of years to make the learning part as efficient as possible is just a little bit better than those max 5year old baby LLM with brut force learning techniques?
LANIK2000@lemmy.world 5 weeks ago
The 5 year old baby LLM can’t learn shit and lacks the ability to understand new information. You’re assuming that we and LLMs “learn” in the same way. Our brains can reason and remember information, detect new patterns and build on them. An LLM is quite literally incapable of learning a brand new pattern, let alone reason and build on it. Until we have an AI that can accept new information without being tolled what is and isn’t important to remember and how to work with that information, we’re not even a single step closer to AGI. Just because LLMs are impressive, doesn’t mean they posses any cognition. The only way AIs “learn” is by countless people constantly telling it what is and isn’t important or even correct. The second you remove that part, it stops working and turns to shit real quick. More “training” time isn’t going to solve the fact that without human input and human defined limits, it can’t do a single thing. AI cannot learn form it self without human input either, there are countless studies that show how it degrades, and it degrades quickly, like literally just one generation down the line is absolute trash.
Petter1@lemm.ee 5 weeks ago
A human not trained by other humans also just dies…
MentalEdge@sopuli.xyz 1 month ago
The “how do you know humans don’t work the way machine learning does” is the wrong side of the argument. You should be explaining why you think LLMs work like humans.
Even as LLMs solve thinking problems, there is little evidence they do so the same way humans do, as they can’t seem to solve issues that aren’t included in their training data
Humans absolutely can and do solve new and novel problems without prior experience of the logic involved. LLMs can’t seem to pull that off.
Petter1@lemm.ee 1 month ago
I think LLM is a part of the human mind very similar to the one we have on PCs but there are other parts as well where the brain can simulate objects and landscape with nearly perfect physical forces, it can do logical detection on an other place etc. A LLM is just the speaking module, and others we already have like the logical math part and the 3D physics engine and 2D picture generator. Let’s connect all of them and see what happens 🤷🏻♀️
MentalEdge@sopuli.xyz 1 month ago
You think? So you base this on no studies or evidence?
Petter1@lemm.ee 1 month ago
Yes