Comment by jumploops

Comment by jumploops a day ago

11 replies

> It is absolutely true, and AI cannot think, reason, comprehend anything it has not seen before.

The amazing thing about LLMs is that we still don’t know how (or why) they work!

Yes, they’re magic mirrors that regurgitate the corpus of human knowledge.

But as it turns out, most human knowledge is already regurgitation (see: the patent system).

Novelty is rare, and LLMs have an incredible ability to pattern match and see issues in “novel” code, because they’ve seen those same patterns elsewhere.

Do they hallucinate? Absolutely.

Does that mean they’re useless? Or does that mean some bespoke code doesn’t provide the most obvious interface?

Having dealt with humans, the confidence problem isn’t unique to LLMs…

skydhash 21 hours ago

> The amazing thing about LLMs is that we still don’t know how (or why) they work!

You may want to take a course in machine learning and read a few papers.

  • semiquaver 16 hours ago

    Parent is right. We know mechanically how LLMs are trained and used but why they work as well as they do is very much not known.

  • js8 19 hours ago

    Sorry, but that's reductionism. We don't know how human brain works, and that you won't get there by studying quantum electrodynamics.

    LLMs are insanely complex systems and their emergent behavior is not explained by the algorithm alone.

  • whateverbrah 18 hours ago

    That was sarcasm by the poster, in case you failed to notice.

  • dboreham 19 hours ago

    Suspect you and the parent poster are thinking on different levels.

rainonmoon 20 hours ago

> the corpus of human knowledge.

Goodness this is a dim view on the breadth of human knowledge.

  • jamesrcole 20 hours ago

    what do you object to about it? I don't see an issue with referring to "the corpus of human knowledge". "Corpus" pretty much just means the "collection of".

    • jazzyjackson 19 hours ago

      Human knowledge != Reddit/Twitter/Wikipedia

      • jamesrcole 18 hours ago

        Who said it was? I’m pretty sure they’re trained on a lot more than just those.

      • oezi 18 hours ago

        Conversely, what do you posit is part of human knowledge but isn't scrapable from the internet?

        • jazzyjackson 17 hours ago

          I mean, as far as a corpus goes, I suppose all text on the internet gets pretty close if most books are included, but even then you’re mostly looking at English language books that have been OCR’d.

          But I look down my nose at conceptions that human knowledge is packagable as plain text, our lives, experience, and intelligence is so much more than the cognitive strings we assemble in our heads in order to reason. It’s like in that movie Contact when Jodie Foster muses that they should have sent a poet. Our empathy and curiosity and desires are not encoded in UTF8. You might say these are realms other than knowledge, but woe to the engineer who thinks they’re building anything superhuman while leaving these dimensions out, they’re left with a cold super-rationalist with no impulse to create of its own.