• BURN@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    24
    arrow-down
    18
    ·
    1 year ago

    There’s no learning of concepts. That’s why models hallucinate so frequently. They don’t “know” anything, they’re doing a lot of math based on what they’ve seen before and essentially taking the best guess at what the next word is.

    • MickeySwitcherooney@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      There very much is learning of concepts. This is completely provable. You can give it problems it has never seen before and it will come up with good solutions.

    • SIGSEGV@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      18
      arrow-down
      10
      ·
      1 year ago

      Very much like humans do. Many people think that somehow their brain is special, but really, you’re just neurons behaving as neurons do, which can be modeled mathematically.

      • Hello Hotel@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        This take often denies that entropy soul or not is critically important for the types of intellegence thats not controlled by reward and punishment with an iron fist.

        • SIGSEGV@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          It sounds like you know english words but cannot compose them. I honestly cannot parse what you said.

      • BURN@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        7
        ·
        1 year ago

        We can’t even map the entirety of the brain of a mouse due to the scale of how neurons work. Mapping a human brain 1:1 will eventually happen, and that’s likely going to coincide with when I’m convinced AI is capable of individual thought and actual intelligence

        • SIGSEGV@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          13
          arrow-down
          16
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Just saw this today. You should check it out, nitwit: https://www.theguardian.com/science/2023/aug/15/scientists-reconstruct-pink-floyd-song-by-listening-to-peoples-brainwaves

          Edit: “nitwit” was uncalled for, but I do think you are an ignorant person.

          You aren’t magical. You don’t have a soul that talks to Jesus. You’re a bunch of organized electrical signals—a machine. Because your machine is carbon-based doesn’t make you special.

          Edit: Downvote all you want, but we’re all still animals. Most people don’t even believe that simple fact. Then again, most people don’t even understand how their cellphone works.

          • BURN@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            14
            arrow-down
            9
            ·
            1 year ago

            I fundamentally disagree and if that’s your take on humanity I’m scared for our future.

            There is a human element to us. I’m not spiritual at all. I believe when we die the lights just go out and we cease to exist. But there is undoubtedly a part of us that is still far from being replicated in a machine. I’m not saying it won’t happen, I’m saying we’re a long way from it and what we’re seeing out of current AI is nothing even close to resembling intelligence.

            • SIGSEGV@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              11
              arrow-down
              6
              ·
              1 year ago

              So when it happens, you’ll change your mind? My point is that what we have today is based on interactions in the human brain: neural networks. You can say, “They’re just guessing the next word based on mathematical models”, but isn’t that exactly what you’re doing?

              Point to the reason why what comes out of your mouth is any different. Is it because your network is bigger and more complicated? If that’s the case GPT-4 is closer to being human than GPT-3 was, being a larger model.

              I just don’t get your point at all.

              • PupBiru@kbin.social
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                and if that is indeed the point: that the difference is simply size, then what does that law look like? surely it would need to specify a size of the relevant neural network that is able to derive works

                but that’s then just an arbitrary number because we just don’t know what it would be

                • SIGSEGV@sh.itjust.works
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  5
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  I don’t even think that matters much, right? Current LLMs already out-compete humans at many tasks. I think we’re already past the threshold, at least in some regards. That is to say, I don’t think there is a hard line because it depends on what your testing criteria are.