this post was submitted on 24 Jul 2024
434 points (97.2% liked)
Technology
59099 readers
3204 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
Model degeneration is an already well-known phenomenon. The article already explains well what's going on so I won't go into details, but note how this happens because the model does not understand what it is outputting - it's looking for patterns, not for the meaning conveyed by said patterns.
Frankly at this rate might as well go with a neuro-symbolic approach.
The issue with your assertion is that people don't actually work a similar way. Have you ever met someone who was clearly taught "garbage'?
I'm talking about LLMs, not about people.
I know you are, but the argument that an LLM doesn't understand context is incorrect. It's not human level understanding, but it's been demonstrated that they do have a level of understanding.
And to be clear, I'm not talking about consciousness or sapience.
Emphasis mine. I am talking about the textual output. I am not talking about context.
Additionally, your obnoxiously insistent comparison between LLMs and human beings boils down to a red herring.
Not wasting my time further with you.
[For others who might be reading this: sorry for the blatantly rude tone but I got little to no patience towards people who distort what others say, like the one above.]
My original reply was meant to be tongue-in-cheek, but I guess I forgot about Poe's law. I'm not a layman, for the record. I've worked with AI for over a decade
Ditto. Have a nice day.
Citation needed
Here you go
https://youtu.be/gQddtTdmG_8
A better mathematical system of storing words does not mean the LLM understands any of them. It just has a model that represents the relation between words that it uses.
If I put 10 minus 8 into my calculator I get 2. The calculator doesn't actually understand what 2 means, or what subtracting represents, it just runs the commands that gives the appropriate output.
That's a bad analogy, because the calculator wasn't trained using an artificial neural network literally designed by studying biological brains (aka biological neutral networks).
And "understand" doesn't equate to consciousness or sapience. For example, it is entirely and factually correct to state that an LLM is capable of reasoning. That's not even up for debate. The accuracy of an LLM's reasoning capability is one of the fundamental benchmarks used for evaluating its quality.
But that doesn't mean it's "thinking" in the way most people consider.
Edit: anyone up voting this CileTheSane clown is in the same boat of not comprehending how LLMs work.
Citation needed.
If you're going to tell me LLMs are modeled after biological brains and capable of reasoning then I call bullshit on your claims that you actually work in AI.
Imagine you put a man in an enclosed room. There is a slot in the wall where messages get passed through written in Chinese. The man does not speak Chinese or even recognize the written language, he just thinks they're weird symbols.
First the man is shown examples of sequences of symbols to train him. Then he is shown incomplete sequences and asked which symbol comes next. If incorrect he is corrected, if correct he gets cookie. Eventually this man is able to carry on "conversations" with people in Chinese through continued practice.
This man still does not speak Chinese, he is not having reasoned, rational arguments with the people he is conversing with, and if you told him it was a language he's look at you like your crazy. "There's no language here, just if I have these symbols and I next put the one that looks like a man wearing a hat they give me a cookie."
Thinking LLMs are capable of reasoning is the digital equivalent of putting eyes on a pencil then feeling bad when it gets broken in half.
Certainly!
In machine learning, a neural network (also artificial neural network or neural net, abbreviated ANN or NN) is a model inspired by the structure and function of biological neural networks in animal brains
Source
A neural network is a method in artificial intelligence that teaches computers to process data in a way that is inspired by the human brain.
Source
A neural network is a machine learning program, or model, that makes decisions in a manner similar to the human brain
Source
*A neural network, or artificial neural network, is a type of computing architecture that is based on a model of how a human brain functions *
Source
Would you like some more citations?
In this paper, we present Reasoning via Planning (RAP), a novel LLM reasoning framework that equips LLMs with an ability to reason akin to human-like strategic planning
Source - Reasoning with Language Model is Planning with World Model
Motivated by the observation that adding more concise CoT examples in the prompt can improve LLM reasoning performance
Source - Microsoft Research
LegalBench - a tool to evaluate the reasoning performance of an LLM in the legal domain.
A paper on benchmarking an LLMs temporal reasoning.
Shall I provide some more?
Wikipedia is not a source.
Amazon is not a source.
Someone trying to sell their LLM to the general public, and therefore simplifying the language to convey a concept is not a source.
By that definition my dimmer switch functions like a biological brain because it passes electrical impulses.
So does not function like a brain does.
So it's a proposal for a new framework to mimic it, not how LLMs currently function
Aaand I'm going to stop checking your sources now. If you're just going to gish gallop every link from a search page you think agrees with you I'm not going to waste my time reading things you clearly didn't bother to. It took 5 links to get to something that even looks like a source, and it doesn't say what you think it does.
Read your sources and make sure they say what you think they do. If you present me with another pile of links and the first one is invalid I won't bother looking at the 2nd.
My god you're thick.
What you just did is called "digging a deeper hole".
Like I said, I've worked in the industry for over a decade. What I said isn't even up for debate. If you had a shred of understanding you know how astoundingly wrong what you said is. In fact, if you had a shred of understanding you just flat out wouldn't have said it.
Straight up genetic fallacy.
You're right. It's not a "source". It's a source aggregator. You know that list of little tiny text at the bottom of each page? Those are "references" from credible sources that are cited.
I'll give you an example. The quote from Wikipedia I provided has a little "1" and a little "2" right at the end of the sentence. If you click on them it'll take you to the cited source.
The little "1" will bring you to the following page:
https://news.mit.edu/2017/explained-neural-networks-deep-learning-0414
Here are some excerpts:
Modeled loosely on the human brain, a neural net consists of thousands or even millions of simple processing nodes that are densely interconnected.
particular network layouts or rules for adjusting weights and thresholds have reproduced observed features of human neuroanatomy and cognition, an indication that they capture something about how the brain processes information.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/neuroscience/artificial-neural-network
It resembles the human brain in two respects: The knowledge is acquired by the network through a learning process, and interneuron connection strengths known as synaptic weights are used to store the knowledge.
They imitate somewhat the learning process of a human brain because they learn the relationship between the input parameters and the controlled and uncontrolled variables by studying previously recorded data.
ANN is a computational model that is based on a machine learning technique. It works like a human brain neuron system.
Directly linked to in the Science Direct page from Wikipedia:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/B9780444528551500118
Artificial neural networks (ANNs) are computational models that attempt to emulate the architecture and function of the human brain (Russell and Norvig, 1995).
Now I know you're either 14 or just not very smart. You directly quoted the source with This prevents LLMs from performing deliber- ate planning akin to human brains,
It's literally in the sentence, it said "deliberate planning akin to human brains". It doesn't say anywhere in that sentence that neural networks aren't modelled after brains and it doesn't say anything about reasoning (the two things you keep refuting).
Convenient for your "argument".
I have. You just can't read, have reading comprehension issues, or simply can't understand them.
I don't care if you do. Anyone else who reads these comments will see you're out of your depth.
Since we're naming fallacies: appeal to authority. I'm a Astronaut Scientist Millionaire Cowboy and I say you're wrong
Begging the question
Ad Hominem
Then you should have linked those, not Wikipedia. I'm not going to put more work into this than you are. If you can't be bothered to find the actual source I'm not going to do it for you.
Let me stop you right there.
"Modeled loosely on the human brain." So again your source straight up says it does not function like a human brain.
None of that indicates a capacity to reason.
I thought we were talking about LLMs, not ANNs, and an attempt to emulate does not imply success.
Ad Hominem
Interesting how you cut out the words "prevents the LLM from" that immediately preceded that.
Convenient for dealing with a gish gallop. Not going to waste my time analyzing sources you haven't even read.
More Ad Hominem.
Someone with an actual argument doesn't need to resort to personal attacks every other paragraph. They can simply present their argument. Someone without an actual argument is likely to resort to personal attacks to make the other person go away and stop forcing them to defend their (non)argument, then think they've "won" just because the other person isn't bothering to deal with them anymore.
Ah yes, you've been getting a lot of "support and agreement" from the other people reading your comments.
Can you get your fallacy definitions right at least? It's not appeal to authority if the person being referenced has the qualifications or experience in the subject being discussed. I have worked with the technology for a decade. I've trained countless neural network models for various purposes. I understand the technology.
No. You are literally trying to debate established facts.
This would be true if I didn't address the point multiple times. This was me offering an explanation for why you keep getting it wrong.
I did link to multiple scientific sources. You just gave up before even getting to halfway.
No, it literally says in multiple sections (that I quoted) that neural networks are designed by modelling biological brains. It doesn't matter if it's "loosely", "exactly", "somewhat", or "kinda". It's modelled "loosely" because the human brain is incredibly complex. Quite possibly the most complex thing known of. The distinction here in the ONE quote you cherry-picked is that it said human brain. The distinction is the word "human".
I literally didn't. It's literally in my quote on italics. I'll refer to my previous (ad hom) statement about your reading comprehension.
Then go back to the links you conveniently skipped over.
It hurts. You actually hurt my brain. An LLM is literally an artificial neural network. How do trolls like you actually think?
Nothing I said is a personal attack. Remaking that you must not have good reading comprehension is insulting, but not a personal attack.
I have; very simply, in fact. I just genuinely do not think you have the reading comprehension or capacity to understand.
Sure, the 10 people who commented on this post who are not reading our convo is such an indication of support.
I was going to reply to other things until I read this. It really displays why continuing is a waste of time. You insist I lack reading comprehension in the same sentence that you insist a literal personal attack is not a personal attack.
Finally something we can agree on. Continuing this is a waste of time.
You don't accept evidence, so there's nothing left to be said.