sunbeam60@sunbeam60@feddit.uk
edited

Replying to @⁨Zwuzelmaus@feddit.org⁩

I’m just a movement generator.

Saying “it’s a text generator” cannot be the full force of your criticism, if the text it generates is incredibly useful. What could AI be on a screen if not a text generator?

Your views have got to be formed by WHAT text is generated given that AI cannot express itself through any other channel than text.

If you can give AI a deeply complex code base and ask it to find the likely cause of an obscure bug, and the solution is right, then you’ll have to acknowledge that some form of reasoning is going on, no?

And given that no other system has previously enabled this form of reasoning, it seems a shame to judge AI on semantics, rather than usefulness.

Muehe@Muehe@lemmy.ml

Replying to @⁨sunbeam60@feddit.uk⁩

I’m just a movement generator.

Which is way more complex than just predicting text, because you have to predict physics and all that stuff. There is a reason most robots controlled by neural nets have failed hilariously so far.

then you’ll have to acknowledge that some form of reasoning is going on, no?

By that logic you could say a compiler is reasoning. But the reasoning displayed was happening when the compiler (or LLM training material respectively) was written.

en
Muehe@Muehe@lemmy.ml
edited

Replying to @⁨eager_eagle@lemmy.world⁩

You might be a few years behind. We have robots outpacing human performance in specific tasks using neural networks.

Might well be behind here, but to my knowledge we don’t have a single robot outpacing a single human in most tasks. They don’t do one-shot learning from their mistakes, they don’t learn new movements randomly. Because most basically just use static weights when operating, because you don’t really want an industrial robot to get ideas. But even test systems that can learn usually just have an equivalent to the movement model of a brain, maybe a vision model, just like an LLM is just a language model. You would need a system that has all of those, plus the other brain areas, especially a prefrontal cortex like model for integration.

I’m sure people are working on it, but I haven’t heard of anything successful yet. I imagine there might be a being like that in secret which is currently tortured in some billionaires tech dungeon. Poor thing.

Also, LLMs can perform on tasks they weren’t explicitly trained for. This line is not as well defined as you make it sound.

Yeah but that’s coincidental. It’s the model weights, prompt, and the RNG aligning. They can mock reasoning, because they do it by what they always do, predict more text, but it’s not like this has any effect on themselves. They aren’t really understanding a mistake when you point it out and growing neurons and synapses, i.e. they won’t have different model weights the next time you ask the same question. They can only really change when the powers that be release an update, which includes new training data, and hence model weights.

Muehe@Muehe@lemmy.ml
edited

Replying to @⁨sunbeam60@feddit.uk⁩

If you can’t see the difference between a compiler and a large language model

If you can’t see the difference between a given example and the underlying logic…

And if the entirety of your argument is a mystic “and all that stuff”

What, you want me to list the entirety of sciences downstream from physics that are involved in generating and predicting movement in mammals? Because that could, like, take a while…