It’s that they are trying to use statistics to encode entire thought processes into hidden variables from conversation snippets. They want to use statistics to go from many individual interactions to a large model, and then use that model to predict individual interactions again.
Has it been shown that the human brain doesn’t model the world in a similar way, though? A huge portion of human knowledge is both stored and transmitted in the form of language. Lots of human knowledge also follows the garbage in, garbage out theory, where you can have entire areas of knowledge that aren’t actually true but might be internally consistent, at least within certain scopes: conspiracy theories, belief in the supernatural, entire academic disciplines built on a religion or theology that not everyone believes, etc. Or even world building in fiction, the words on a page can be enough to convey ideas such that it “tricks” human brains into filling in the gaps so that they internally see a rich, fleshed out world that is entirely fictional and where specific details might not find strong direct support in the underlying text.
it has no concept of correctness
But statistical weight on what is more or less likely to be correct still makes a difference to objective quality of the outputs. If the model weights are trained on the reality that high quality university texts describe something and reflect some sort of underlying model of what is described using language, then can’t the model itself learn as much as a human could from those words on a page?
All models are wrong, but some can be useful. And different models have different quality in different domains. So although I don’t believe LLMs will overtake the hump of getting ahead of human knowledge, I also don’t believe that any given LLM can be evaluated on quality, and that Facebook’s LLMs are significantly behind other LLMs we see.
And that maybe a huge part of it is its internal process of preparing the model to evaluate the quality of its inputs, such that the output it produces can also score high on quality.
But it isn’t encoding knowledge, it’s encoding word correlations. That’s how it can get things wrong like saying fat32 won’t be good for a 64GB removable drive because fat32 only has a 2TB address space.
Or how it can get something wrong and when you point it out, it immediately sees how it was wrong. And I realize that that sounds human, but the way it gets there is very different. It’s predicting responses based off word correlations, not using knowledge recall to apply facts and relations known about the topics and generate responses from that.
But it isn’t encoding knowledge, it’s encoding word correlations.
I’m saying that humans do this a lot, too. Qualitatively, it’s different, in that this particular batch of frontier LLMs will get things wrong in ways that most human brains wouldn’t, but as a category of error it’s not unique to LLMs.
I know a ton of facts that I learned only through reading, and have no actual firsthand knowledge/experience or ability to test it: Jupiter is larger than Saturn, the atmosphere during the Carboniferous period was high in oxygen, cigarettes cause cancer, Thomas Jefferson owned slaves, the capital of Norway is Oslo. At best, I can cross reference other sources and see that things are consistent with each other. Is my belief in those facts “knowledge,” or is it merely recognizing from my training data that those particular words can validly be presented in that order?
If you ask average people on the street whether FAT32 is a good filesystem for a 64GB removable drive, most of them won’t know, but there are a handful of bullshitters who might confidently parrot back things they can Google but not understand. That’s part of the human condition, too.
I’m by no means an AI booster/enthusiast. I suspect LLMs/transformers are actually a dead end, and expect the upcoming crash to be economically and financially devastating to the tech and financial sectors. But I also have a pretty dim view of human intelligence, too, and see way too many parallels in LLMs as bullshit artists to humans as bullshit artists, too.
Has it been shown that the human brain doesn’t model the world in a similar way, though? A huge portion of human knowledge is both stored and transmitted in the form of language. Lots of human knowledge also follows the garbage in, garbage out theory, where you can have entire areas of knowledge that aren’t actually true but might be internally consistent, at least within certain scopes: conspiracy theories, belief in the supernatural, entire academic disciplines built on a religion or theology that not everyone believes, etc. Or even world building in fiction, the words on a page can be enough to convey ideas such that it “tricks” human brains into filling in the gaps so that they internally see a rich, fleshed out world that is entirely fictional and where specific details might not find strong direct support in the underlying text.
But statistical weight on what is more or less likely to be correct still makes a difference to objective quality of the outputs. If the model weights are trained on the reality that high quality university texts describe something and reflect some sort of underlying model of what is described using language, then can’t the model itself learn as much as a human could from those words on a page?
All models are wrong, but some can be useful. And different models have different quality in different domains. So although I don’t believe LLMs will overtake the hump of getting ahead of human knowledge, I also don’t believe that any given LLM can be evaluated on quality, and that Facebook’s LLMs are significantly behind other LLMs we see.
And that maybe a huge part of it is its internal process of preparing the model to evaluate the quality of its inputs, such that the output it produces can also score high on quality.
But it isn’t encoding knowledge, it’s encoding word correlations. That’s how it can get things wrong like saying fat32 won’t be good for a 64GB removable drive because fat32 only has a 2TB address space.
Or how it can get something wrong and when you point it out, it immediately sees how it was wrong. And I realize that that sounds human, but the way it gets there is very different. It’s predicting responses based off word correlations, not using knowledge recall to apply facts and relations known about the topics and generate responses from that.
I’m saying that humans do this a lot, too. Qualitatively, it’s different, in that this particular batch of frontier LLMs will get things wrong in ways that most human brains wouldn’t, but as a category of error it’s not unique to LLMs.
I know a ton of facts that I learned only through reading, and have no actual firsthand knowledge/experience or ability to test it: Jupiter is larger than Saturn, the atmosphere during the Carboniferous period was high in oxygen, cigarettes cause cancer, Thomas Jefferson owned slaves, the capital of Norway is Oslo. At best, I can cross reference other sources and see that things are consistent with each other. Is my belief in those facts “knowledge,” or is it merely recognizing from my training data that those particular words can validly be presented in that order?
If you ask average people on the street whether FAT32 is a good filesystem for a 64GB removable drive, most of them won’t know, but there are a handful of bullshitters who might confidently parrot back things they can Google but not understand. That’s part of the human condition, too.
I’m by no means an AI booster/enthusiast. I suspect LLMs/transformers are actually a dead end, and expect the upcoming crash to be economically and financially devastating to the tech and financial sectors. But I also have a pretty dim view of human intelligence, too, and see way too many parallels in LLMs as bullshit artists to humans as bullshit artists, too.