Comment on LLMs develop their own understanding of reality as their language abilities improve

• Deceptichum@quokk.au ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  Do I “think” or does my brain pick the closest neuron and spit out a function based on that input?

  If we could recreate the universe, would I do the exact same thing in the exact same situation?

  source

  • atrielienz@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    I’m sorry. Because you don’t understand how your brain works you’re suggesting that it must work in the same way as something a similar brain created because you don’t know how either thing works. That’s not an argument.

    source

    • Deceptichum@quokk.au ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      No, I’m not suggesting that.

      I’m suggesting that if we don’t even understand how consciousness works for ourselves, we cannot make claims about how it will look for other things.

      Deterministically free will does not exist, if we cannot exercise free will we cannot have independent thoughts just the same as a machine.

      Truth is we don’t really know shit, we’re biological machines that are able to think they’re in control of themselves.

      source

      • atrielienz@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

        Okay. Feed a new species that hasn’t been named yet into an LLM. Does it name that new creature? Can it decide what family or phylum etc it belongs? Does it pick up the specific attributes of that new species?

        source

        • -> View More Comments
      • technocrit@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

        I’m suggesting that if we don’t even understand how consciousness works for ourselves, we cannot make claims about how it will look for other things.

        So is a rock conscious? I guess we’ll never know.

        source
      • tabular@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

        I suspect others are talking about “thinking” only objectively.

        B) If a LLM had a subjective experience when given input presumably it has none when all processes are stopped (subjective an unverifiable).

        A) If a LLM has no input then there are no processes going on at all which could be described as thinking (objective: what is the program doing).

        source
• A_A@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  Science cannot say much about what it is to think since it doesn’t understand the brain well enough … and the day we can fully explained it, we will also be able to replicated it on computers.

  source

  • atrielienz@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    Science can and does quantify what our brains do vs what an LLM does though. That’s the point. That’s why the brain knows when it’s supplying wrong information or guessing but the LLM does not.

    The LLM can provide wrong information. What it can’t do is intentionally lie.

    source

    • A_A@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      i agree with you that we are much better than LLMs in the fact we can verify our errors (and we can do much more things LLMs don’t do).
      Still i am happy to have access to their vast memory and i know where they fail most of times so i can work with them in a productive way.
      The day we provide them (or DNNs) with “Will” is i think when they will become (more) dangerous.

      source

      • technocrit@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

        Gotta use heavy quotes around “will”… Mixing up your AI pseudo-science with your fascist pseudo-science.

        source
      • atrielienz@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

        Nah fam. You’re comparing this thing to GM yourself and other humans because to you it sounds like us. “Sounds like” is the way phrasing conspiracy theorists use to try to make correlations regardless of whether they make sense or not without filling in any actual facts. Either you know and understand how they work and are researching this and have a valid rebuttal or you don’t. But an assumption does not make anything you said fact. People who are researching this have already refuted this claim.

        You don’t even know what the word “will” would mean in this context, or that it would provide an LLM with the kind of consciousness required to be sapient. So can we stop arguing if you just admit that you like using LLM’s so you have a bias and a poor understanding of what they are and aren’t.

        source
  • technocrit@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    Science cannot say much about what it is to think since it doesn’t understand the brain well enough

    Wild pseudo-scientific generalization.

    and the day we can fully explained it, we will also be able to replicated it on computers.

    There are many many things that are fully explained but will never be replicated on computers. Eg. Any numerical problem bigger than a computer.

    source