this post was submitted on 24 Jan 2024
7 points (54.1% liked)

Technology

59605 readers
3501 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

I've been saying this for about a year since seeing the Othello GPT research, but it's nice to see more minds changing as the research builds up.

Edit: Because people aren't actually reading and just commenting based on the headline, a relevant part of the article:

New research may have intimations of an answer. A theory developed by Sanjeev Arora of Princeton University and Anirudh Goyal, a research scientist at Google DeepMind, suggests that the largest of today’s LLMs are not stochastic parrots. The authors argue that as these models get bigger and are trained on more data, they improve on individual language-related abilities and also develop new ones by combining skills in a manner that hints at understanding — combinations that were unlikely to exist in the training data.

This theoretical approach, which provides a mathematically provable argument for how and why an LLM can develop so many abilities, has convinced experts like Hinton, and others. And when Arora and his team tested some of its predictions, they found that these models behaved almost exactly as expected. From all accounts, they’ve made a strong case that the largest LLMs are not just parroting what they’ve seen before.

“[They] cannot be just mimicking what has been seen in the training data,” said Sébastien Bubeck, a mathematician and computer scientist at Microsoft Research who was not part of the work. “That’s the basic insight.”

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] FaceDeer@kbin.social 0 points 10 months ago (2 children)

I have a theory... so are you and I.

[–] Redacted@lemmy.world 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Orders of magnitude of differece between the most complex known object in the universe and some clever statistical analysis.

We understand very little about the human brain. For example, we don't know if it leverages quantum interactions or whether it can be decoupled from its substrate.

LLMs are pattern matching models loosly based on the structure of neurons that work well for deriving predictions from a vast body of data but are not anywhere near human brain level of understanding. I personally don't think they will ever be until we have solved the hard problem of conciousness.

[–] FaceDeer@kbin.social -2 points 10 months ago (1 children)
[–] Redacted@lemmy.world 3 points 10 months ago

Welp looks like we both know the arguments and fall on different sides of the debate then.

Much better than being confidently wrong like most LLMs...

[–] Phanatik@kbin.social 0 points 10 months ago (1 children)

I don't need a theory for this, you're being highly reductive by focusing on a few features of human communication.

[–] Redacted@lemmy.world 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Thank you, much more succinctly put than my attempt.

[–] Phanatik@kbin.social 1 points 10 months ago

I've just done the dance already and I'm tired of their watered-down attempts at bringing human complexity down to a level that makes their chat bots seem smart.