82
AI is not rule (youtu.be)
submitted 2 years ago by to c/196@lemmy.blahaj.zone
24 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

KICK TECH BROS OUT OF 196

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 2 points 2 years ago (1 child)

You missed the point of my "can be wrong" bit. The focus was on the final clause of "and recognize that it was wrong".

But I'm kinda confused by your last post. You say that only computer scientists are giving it feedback on its "correctness" and therefore it can't truly be conscious, but that's trivially untrue and clearly irrelevant.

First, feedback on correctness can be driven by end users. Anyone can tell ChatGPT "I don't like the way you did that," and it would be trivially easy to add that to a feedback loop that influences the model over time.

Second, find me a person who's only feedback loop was internal. People are told "no that's wrong" or "you've messed that up" all the time. That's what makes us grow as people. That is arguably the core underpinning of what makes something intelligent. The ability to take ideas from other people (computer scientists or no), and have them influence the way you think about things.

Like, it seems like you think that the "consciousness program" you describe would count as an intelligence, but then say it doesn't because it's only getting its external information from computer scientists, which seems like a distinction without a difference.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 2 years ago

    Second, find me a person who's only feedback loop was internal.

    Not my argument: find me a person you'd consider intelligent who is only influenced externally, with no autonomy of their own. I name that person vegetable.

    First, feedback on correctness can be driven by end users.

    You've never worked with end users, have you? Jesus Christ the last thing you want to give an end users is write access to your model. It doesn't matter what channels hat write access comes through, it will be used to destroy your model.

    (Not to mention the extortionate cost of this constant training, but this isn't a discussion about economic feasibility)

    Besides that doesn't solve autonomy, which is still an integral aspect of intelligence.

    The "consciousness program" is a fiction for illustrative purposes. It doesn't exist, in case you misunderstood me.

    I did not miss the point on the wrong bit: but an LLM saying it is uncertain is not the same as saying it is wrong, and LLMs do not evaluate true or false: they transform inputs into outputs. Optionally with a certainty level.

    Feeding another LLM with the outputs of the first has shown in some cases to improve accuracy, but that's just hooking 2 models together: not solving the fundamental gaps in reasoning.

    If a human encounters an unknown situation it can seek out context to try and figure more out. They can generalize what they know and seek for things that might help them understand more.

    An LLM just has an output. It cannot "broaden it's search" or generalize. Anything that did so would be layers on top of the LLM running aforementioned fictious "consciousness", and that consciousness would have a significant amount of complexity in order to perform the functions described here and previously.

    An LLM is not an actor, it is math.

    You're anthropomorphizing bits.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent