this post was submitted on 13 Dec 2023
98 points (92.2% liked)
Technology
59152 readers
2489 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Big Autocomplete isn't "AI". This is not new technology, this is "We used buzzwords to hype up 20 year old EEG interpreters, please give us money"
Calling llm "big auto-complete" is like calling people "big bacteria" . It's true that they act on the same goal, guess the next word for llm and auto-complete; survive and reproduce for people and bacteria, but they are vastly different in scale and complexity.
Also what would AI be to you if not an llm? Cause I'd say anything that has an SAT score higher than most Americans has some form of intelligence.
"Big Bacteria" is a much more accurate descriptor of humans than "Artificial Intelligence" is of large language models.
This is the same problem we had with IQ testing, what the test measures is not "intelligence", but the ability to retain and process information according to a predefined schema. This requires no intelligence at all, as demonstrated by the fact that a sufficiently large statistical model of human writing patterns can pass the SATs.
I’ve always wondered with stances like this, why do you assume that our “intelligence” is much different than that of llms? I mean, as much as we like to feel superior, is there anything that would really prove that our brains don’t work in a similar manner behind the curtains? What if we just get input stimuli and our mind is simply the process of figuring out the most likely answers, reactions or whatever, to that?
I haven’t seen anything to that effect, but then again my field of study is vastly different. I’d like to be enlightened certainly!
LLMs are statistical models of human writing, they only offer the appearance of intelligence in the same fashion as the Chinese Room thought experiment.
There's nothing "intelligent" in there, just a very large set of instructions for transforming inputs into outputs.
A sufficiently advanced model of the human brain can be "intelligent" in the same way that humans are, but this would not be "artificial" since it would necessarily employ the same "natural" processes as our brains.
Until we have a model of "intelligence" itself, anyone claiming to have "AI" is just trying to sell you something.
What I wonder, though, is if it isn’t possible to describe human brain, and the nervous system as a whole, as a very large set of instructions for transforming inputs into outputs?
It could be described that way, but it wouldn't be a very apt metaphor. We aren't simple, stateful input-to-output algorithms, but a confluence of innate tendencies, learned experiences, acquired habits, unconscious motivations, and capable of modifying our own thought processes and behavior on the fly to suit whatever best fits the local context. Our brains encode a model of the world we live in that includes models of ourselves and the other people we interact with, all built in realtime from our observations without conscious effort.
I’m not disputing that our intelligence isn’t more sophisticated, but rather that maybe the “intelligence” in llms is not necessarily all that different from ours, just based on different and limited inputs, and trained on a vastly less wide data.
But it is, necessarily.
For example, when we make shit up, we're aware that the shit we made up isn't real. LLMs are structurally incapable of recognizing the distinction between facts they regurgitate and the ones they manufacture from whole cloth.
You didn't have to consume terabytes of text to build a model for how to form sentences like a human, you did that with a few megabytes of overheard conversation before you were even conscious enough to be aware of it.
There's no model of intelligence so over-simplified to the point of giving LLMs partial credit that wouldn't also give equivalent credence to the "intelligence" of search engines.
This seems like circular reasoning. SAT scores don't measure intelligence because llm can pass it which isn't intelligent.
Why isn't the llm intelligent?
Because it can only pass tests that don't measure intelligence.
You still haven't answered what intelligence is or what an a.i. would be. Without a definition you just fall into the trap of "A.I. is whatever computers cant do" which has been going on for a while:
Computers can do arithmetic but they can't do calculus, that requires true intelligence.
Ok computers can do calculus, but they can't beat someone in chess, that requires true intelligence.
Ok computers can beat us in chess, but they can't form coherent sentences and ideas, that requires true intelligence.
Ok computers can form coherent sentences but ...
It's all just moving the goal post to try and preserve some exclusively human/organic claim to intelligence.
There is one goalpost that has stayed steady, the turing test, which llm seems to have passed, at least for shorter conversation.
The purpose of the SAT isn't to measure intelligence, it is to rank students on their ability to answer test questions.
A copy of the answer key could get a perfect score, do you think that means it's "intelligence" is equivalent to a person with perfect SATs?
For the same reason that the SAT answer key or an instruction manual isn't, the ability to answer questions is not the foundation of intelligence, nor is it exclusive to intelligent entities.
Computer scientists, neurologists, and philosophers can't answer that either, or else we'd already have the algorithms we'd need to build human-equivalent AI.
Exactly, you're just falling into the Turing Trap instead. Just because a company can convince you that it's program is intelligent doesn't mean it is, or else chatbots from 10 years ago would qualify.
The Turing Test is just a slightly modified version of a Victorian-era social deduction game. It doesn't measure intelligence, but the ability to mimic a human conversation. Turing himself acknowledged this: https://www.smithsonianmag.com/innovation/turing-test-measures-something-but-not-intelligence-180951702/
I think your mixing up sentience / consciousness with intelligence. What is consciousness doesn't have a good answer right now and like you said philosophers, computer scientists and neurologist can't come to a clear answer but most think llms aren't conscious.
Intelligence on the other hand does have more concrete definitions that at least computer scientists use that usually revolve around the ability to solve diverse problems and answer questions outside of the entities original training set / database. Yes doing an SAT test with the answer key isn't intelligent because that's in your "database" and is just a matter of copying over the answers. LLMs don't do this though, it doesn't do a lookup of past SAT questions it's seen and answer it, it uses some process of "reasoning" to do it. If you gave an LLM an SAT question that was not in it's original training set it would probably still answer it correctly.
That isn't to say that LLMs are the be all and end all of intelligence, there are different types of intelligence corresponding to the set of problems that intelligence is solving. A plant identification A.I. is intelligent for being able to identify various plants in different scenarios but it completely lacks any emotional, conversational intelligence, etc. The same can be said of a botanist who also may be able to identify plants but may lack some artistic intelligence to depict them. Intelligence comes in many forms.
Different tests can measure different forms of intelligence. The SAT measures a couple like reasoning, rhetoric, scientific etc. The turing test measures conversational intelligence , and the article you showed doesn't seem to show a quote from him saying that it doesn't measure intelligence, but turing would probably agree it doesn't measure some sort of general intelligence, just one facet.
The "reasoning" in LLM is literally statistical probability of which word would follow which word. It has no real concept of what it talks about beyond the pre-built relationship matrices between words and language rules. That's why LLMs confidently hallucinate obvious bullshit time to time - to them there's no meaning to either truthful or absolute bonkers text, it's just words that should probably follow each other.
All inference is just statistical probability. Every answer you give outside of your direct experience is just you infering what might be the answer. Even things we hold as verifiable truth that we haven't experienced is just a guess that the person who told it to us isn't lying or has some sort of proof to there statement.
Take some piece of knowledge like "Biden won the 2020 election" me and you would probably agree this is the truth, but we can't possibly "know" it's the truth or connect it to some verifiable experience, we never counted every ballot or were at every polling station. We "know" it's the truth because more people, and more respectable people, told us it was and our brain makes a statistical guess that their answer is right based on their weight. Just like an LLM other people will hallucinate or bullshit and come on the other side of that guess and assert the opposite and even make up stuff to go along with that story.
This in essence is what reasoning is, you weigh the possibilities of either side being correct, and pick the one that has more weight. That's why science, an epistemological application of reason, is so heavily reliant on statistics..
You've now reduced the "process of reasoning" to hitting the autocomplete button until your keyboard spits out an answer from a database of prior conversations. It might be cleverly designed, but generative models are no more intelligent than an answer key or a library's card catalog. Any "intelligence" they appear to encode actually comes from the people who did the work to assemble the training database.
This is not how LLMs work, they are not a database nor do they have access to one. They are a trained neural net with a set of weights on matrices that we don't fully understand. We do know that it can't possibly have all the information from its training set since the training sets (measured in tb or pb) are orders of magnitude bigger than the models (measured in gb). The llm itself is just what it learned from reading all the training data, just like how you don't memorize every passage in a book you read, just core concepts, relationships and lessons. So if I ask you " who was gatsbys love interest?" You don't remember the line and page of the text that says he loves Daisy, your brain just has a strong connection of neurons between Gatsby, Daisy , love, longing etc. that produces the response "Daisy". The same is true in an LLM, it doesn't have the whole of the great Gatsby in its model but it too would have a strong connection somewhere between Gatsby, Daisy, love etc. to answer the question.
What your thinking of are older chatbots like Siri or Google assistant which do have a set of preset responses mixed in with some information from a structured database.
Please do explain how you think they make LLMs without a database of training examples to build a statistical model from.
I.e. "a model that encodes a database".
I.e., "we applied a very lossy compression algorithm to this database".
Check out the demoscene sometime, you'll be surprised how much complexity can be generated from a very small set of instructions. I've seen entire first person shooter video games less than 100kb in size that algorithmically generate hundreds of megabytes of texture data at runtime. The idea that a mere 1,000x non-lossless compression of text would be impossible is laughable, especially when lossless text compression using neural network techniques achieved a 250x compression ratio years ago.
If LLMs were just lossy encodings of their database they wouldn't be able to answer any questions outside of there training set. They can though, and quite well as shown by the fact you can give it completely made up information that it can't possibly have "seen" and it will go along with it and give plausible answers. That is where it's intelligence lyes and what separates it from older chatbots like Siri that cannot infer and are bound by the database they pull from.
How do you explain the hallucinations if the llm is just a complex lookup engine? You can't lookup something you've never seen.
Of course they could, in the same way that hitting the autocomplete key can finish a half-completed sentence you've never written before.
The fact that models can produce useful outputs from novel inputs is the whole reason why we build models. Your argument is functionally equivalent to the claim that wind tunnels are intelligent because they can characterise the aerodynamics of both old and new kinds of planes.
For the same reason that a random number generator is capable of producing never-before-seen strings of digits. LLM inference engines have a property called "temperature" that governs how much randomness is injected into their responses:
Auto complete is not a lossy encoding of a database either, it's a product of a dataset, just like you are a product of your experiences, but it is not wholly representative of that dataset.
A wind tunnel is not intelligent because it doesn't answer questions or process knowledge/data it just creates data. A wind tunnel will not answer the question "is this aerodynamic" but you can observe a wind tunnel and use your intelligence to process that and answer the question.
Temperature and randomness don't explain hallucinations, they are a product of inference. If you turned the temperature down to 0 and asked it the question " what happened in the great Christmas fire of 1934" it will give it's best guess of what happened then even though that question is not in it's dataset and it can't look up the answer. The temperature would just mean that between runs it would consistently give the same story, the one that is most statistically probable, as opposed to another one that may be less probable but was pushed up due to randomness. Hallucinations are a product of inference, of taking something at face value then trying to explain it. People will do this too, if you tell someone a lie confidently then ask them about it they will use there intelligence to rationalize a story about what happened.
If LLMs don't encode their training data, then why are they proving susceptible to data exfiltration techniques where they output the content of their training dataset verbatim? https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=L_1plTXF-FE
I'm not saying it doesn't encode some of its training data, I'm saying it's not just encoding its training data. It probably does "memorize" a bunch of trivial facts from its training data and regurgitate them when asked. I'm saying that's not all they are and that's not what makes the intelligent, their ability to also answer questions outside their training data is.
But they don't "answer questions", they just respond to prompts. You can't use them to learn anything without checking their responses against authoritative sources you should have used in the first place.
There's no intelligence there, just a plagirism laundromat and some rules for formatting text like a 7th grader.
It can answer questions as well as any person. Just because you may need to check with another source doesn't mean it didn't answer the question it just means you can't fully trust it. If I ask someone who's the fourth u.s. president and they say Jefferson they still answered the question, they just answered it wrong. You also don't have to check with another source in the same way you do with asking a person a question, if it sounds right. If that person answered Madison and I faintly recall it and think it sounds right I will probably not check their answer and take it as fact.
For example I asked chatgpt for a chocolate chip cookie recipe once. I make cookies pretty often so would know if the recipe seemed off but the one it provided seemed good, I followed it and made some pretty good cookies. It answered the question correctly as shown by the cookies. You could argue it plagiarized but while the ingredients and steps were pretty close to some I found later none were a perfect match which is about as good as you can get with recipes which tend to converge in the same thing. The only real difference between most of them is the dumb story they give at the beginning which thankfully chatgpt doesn't do.
The 7th grader and plagiarism comment make me think you haven't played with them much or really tested them. I have had it write contracts, one of which I had reviewed by a lawyer who only had some small comments, as well as other letters and documents I needed for my mortgage and buying a home. All of these were looked over by proffesionals and none of them realized it was a bot. None of them were plagiarized too because the parameters I gave it and the output it created were way too unique to be in its training set.
Of course I have, my employer has me shoehorning ChatGPT into everything, and I agree with what the research says: Children can answer questions better than LLMs can.
https://techxplore.com/news/2023-12-artificial-intelligence-excel-imitation.html
Stochastic plagirism is still plagirism.
That study is like giving a written test to an illiterate adult, seeing them do worse than a child and saying they aren't intelligent or innovative. Like I said earlier intelligence is multi-faceted, and chatgpt excels at rhetorical, conversational and other types of written intelligence. It does not, as that study shows, do well in spatial manipulation, that doesn't mean it's not intelligent. If you gave that same test to a paralyzed blind person with little to no concept of spatial reality they'd probably do just as bad. If you asked them to compose a short story or an essay they might be good at it because that's where they're capabilities lye. That short story could still be innovative in its composition and characters, and could be way better than anything a child wrote.
You have to measure different types of intelligence with different tests. If you asked chatgpt and a set of adults and children to write a short story about a wholey new subject chatgpt would beat most of the children and probably some of the adults.
And if that short story is about a new subject matter completey out of its training set what/who is it plagiarizing from? You could say it's taking common tropes, themes and story elements from other stories, but that's fundamentally what a lot of writing and culture is. If that's plagiarism then you should be more worried about the marvel franchise as it's a plagiarism machine that has way more cultural impact.