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

Technology

59627 readers
5585 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 4 points 10 months ago (14 children)

I've been saying this all along. Language is how humans communicate thoughts to each other. If a machine is trained to "fake" communication via language then at a certain point it may simply be easier for the machine to figure out how to actually think in order to produce convincing output.

We've seen similar signs of "understanding" in the image-generation AIs, there was a paper a few months back about how when one of these AIs is asked to generate a picture the first thing it does is develop an internal "depth map" showing the three-dimensional form of the thing it's trying to make a picture of. Because it turns out that it's easier to make pictures of physical objects when you have an understanding of their physical nature.

I think the reason this gets a lot of pushback is that people don't want to accept the notion that "thinking" may not actually be as hard or as special as we like to believe.

[–] Redacted@lemmy.world 7 points 10 months ago (11 children)

This whole argument hinges on consciousness being easier to produce than to fake intelligence to humans.

Humans already anthropomorphise everything, so I'm leaning towards the latter being easier.

[–] FaceDeer@kbin.social 5 points 10 months ago (1 children)

I'd take a step farther back and say the argument hinges on whether "consciousness" is even really a thing, or if we're "faking" it to each other and to ourselves as well. We still don't have a particularly good way of measuring human consciousness, let alone determining whether AIs have it too.

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

...or even if consciousness is an emergent property of interactions between certain arrangements of matter.

It's still a mystery which I don't think can be reduced to weighted values of a network.

[–] automattable@lemmy.world 1 points 10 months ago (2 children)

This is a really interesting train of thought!

I don’t mean to belittle the actual, real questions here, but I can’t shake the hilarious image of 2 dudes sitting around in a basement, stoned out of their minds getting “deep.”

Bro! What if consciousness isn’t real, and we’re just faking it

brooooooo

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

Now I get it. That dude is explaining the Boltzmann brain.

[–] Redacted@lemmy.world 1 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

Brah, if an AI was conscious, how would it know we are sentient?! Checkmate LLMs.

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

Bold of you to assume any philosophical debate doesn't boil down to just that.

load more comments (9 replies)
load more comments (11 replies)