• flere-imsaho
      link
      fedilink
      English
      164 months ago

      yes. and you wouldn’t believe¹ what’s in the replies when you make this simple and obvious statement.

      ¹ who i am kidding. of course you know.

    • @MojoMcJojo
      link
      English
      44 months ago

      I both agree and disagree. I think of them as golems. They do understand how to respond, but that’s as deep as it goes. It’s simulated understanding, but a very very good simulation… Okay maybe I do agree.

      • @BradleyUffner
        link
        English
        184 months ago

        I think that at best you could say that they understand the relationship between tokens. But even that requires a really generous definition of the word “understand”.

        • @Jimmyeatsausage
          link
          English
          104 months ago

          There’s a saying…“Knowledge is knowing a tomato is a fruit. Wisdom is knowing not to put it in fruit salad.”

          Meanwhile, LLMs are telling us to put glue on pizza so the cheese sticks. Even if the technology could eventually deliver on the promise, by the time we get there, nobody intelligent will trust it because the tech bros are, again, throwing half-baked garbage out into the world to try and be first to market.

            • @Jimmyeatsausage
              link
              English
              24 months ago

              Yes, but the general population doesn’t expect shitposts from their Google search. When I’m reading a meme community I want shitposts. When I’m googling recipies, I’m looking for reliable instructions on how to make dinner. It’s all part of the whole “LLMs don’t know what they’re saying” issue.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    354 months ago

    it’s almost like this thing has no internal conceptual representation! I know this can’t possibly be, millions of promptfans and prompfondlers have told me it can’t be so, but it sure does look that way! wild!

    • Kogasa
      link
      fedilink
      English
      -54 months ago

      It must have some internal models of some things, or else it wouldn’t be possible to consistently make coherent and mostly reasonable statements. But the fact that it has a reasonable model of things like grammar and conversation doesn’t imply that it has a good model of literally anything else, which is unlike a human for whom a basic set of cognitive skills is presumably transferable. Still, the success of LLMs in their actual language-modeling objective is a promising indication that it’s feasible for a ML model to learn complex abstractions.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        224 months ago

        if I copy a coherent sentence into my clipboard, my clipboard becomes capable of consistently making coherent statements

        • Kogasa
          link
          fedilink
          English
          -5
          edit-2
          4 months ago

          Yes, but that’s not how LLMs work. My statement depends heavily on the fact that a LLM like GPT is coaxed into coherence by unsupervised or semi-supervised training. That the training process works is the evidence of an internal model (of language/related concepts), not just the fact that something outputs coherent statements.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            13
            edit-2
            4 months ago

            if I have a bot pick a random book and copy the first sentence into my clipboard, my clipboard becomes capable of consistently making coherent statements. unsupervised training 👍

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        154 months ago

        It must have some internal models of some things, or else it wouldn’t be possible to consistently make coherent and mostly reasonable statements.

        Talk about begging the question

      • flere-imsaho
        link
        fedilink
        English
        144 months ago

        it doesn’t. that’s why we’re calling it “spicy autocompletion” .

        • Kogasa
          link
          fedilink
          English
          -94 months ago

          It does, which is why it’s autocompletion and not auto-gibberish.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    134 months ago

    it seems like it’s not the worst way to write text if I don’t want to allow an ai to parse my messages…

    • David GerardOPM
      link
      fedilink
      English
      134 months ago

      not being not sure to fail to not write like this could become the opposite of interesting after a time that isn’t long, though

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    -7
    edit-2
    4 months ago

    This article is over a year old and you all seem to be buying it as relevant to the current state of things. Can anyone reproduce the experiments/conversations where it fumbles with double negatives etc? I tried a couple examples with chatgpt and it seemed to handle them fine

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      104 months ago

      we don’t care that your instance of a nondeterministic, unreliable system can’t replicate someone else’s results, and we don’t take marching orders from SSC readers.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      184 months ago

      oh goody, the containment thread is leaking

      I won’t even try to guess what the point of this horseshit was but no, fuck off