@kohnzn LLM are pretty bad at facts.
but gettings inspiration for text which I then not copy and paste is pretty great.
LLM have been invented to master languages (specificially: translating them) and I like that about LLM.
But I am still very reluctant of sending data to companies I don't trust
I'm sorry, you are right. Poisonous mushrooms are not edible. Would you like an overview of things that are edible?
Anyway, thanks for the clarification.
The joke can work in Dutch, since the accepted meaning of our word "eetbaar" is the same as "edible", but it literally means "eatable".
But clearly not in English.
Yes, I remember being surprised as a child when someone explained the difference! It really sounds like it _ought_ to mean that :-)
@sibrosan @unchartedworlds i mean in german it's the same
you can eat basically anything
most things you can only eat once
Same: you can look into a laser (but only two times depending on how many eyes you have before the exercise)
@saxnot @kohnzn Apart from the syntax processing parts, which are what fool people into thinking the things are ‘intelligent’, they are just very advanced naïve pattern processors akin to Spam Assassin.
ChatGPT, for instance, simply finds things in its databases that are near each other and strings them together. I know this because it once answered a question with my answer for it but giving my opponents’ retort as the justification! So these were near each other in the databases.
But it is easily proven that LLMs are a dead end for ‘artificial intelligence’.
What is a human being? An organism that is almost the same as a chimpanzee, with an overall intelligence that is very, very similar to a chimpanzee’s. But does a chimpanzee have language? A chimpanzee can communicate, but LANGUAGE is infinitely recursive in structure. A CHIMPANZEE HAS NO LANGUAGE.
Thus human intelligence CANNOT be modeled on manipulation of language. It just CANNOT.
Here BTW is the problem (not original to me) that I posed to that LLMs. They cannot answer correctly, except that once when ChatGPT happened upon my answer. Humans almost always also get it wrong, but I am sure my answer is the correct one. I have thought out the philosophical details.
‘With what probability is six the final digit of pi.’
ChatGPT gave my answer zero and justified this by claiming the problem was ill posed. That is the DETRACTORS’ claim, saying there is no answer!
@saxnot (But, if the detractors were correct, then the question ‘Does pi have a final digit?’ ALSO would be ill posed and have no answer.
In fact, ‘Does pi have a final digit?’ is equivalent to ‘Is the probability x is the final digit of pi equal to zero for x = 0,1,...,9?’, so, again, my original problem is NOT ill posed.
Even HUMANS cannot solve this problem if they do not go beyond mere shallow verbal reasoning and instead VISUALIZE the problem. I have PICTURES in my head.)
@chemoelectric I agree a naive answer might be similar to 1/9 but I have the impression the LLM answer is correct because pi does not have a last digit.
In our decimal system the ratio pi is just a wonky number. Of course if you have a system more inclined to circles and such you might have a less irrational number
in decimal represention pi goes on and on. There is no last number, thus asking for it makes no sense. It's like asking "what was before the big bang?" when time itself started then
@saxnot We are not asking for the last digit of pi, we are asking for the probability that 6 is the last digit of pi. There is no last digit of pi, therefore the probability is zero.
That is the reasoning behind the answer. The reasoning is that there is a theorem proving there is no last digit of pi. The reasoning is NOT that the question was ill posed!
@saxnot I have an anecdotal relationship with pi in that in the mid-1980s I met the Chudnovsky brothers who are famous for finding digits of pi. That is pretty much the extent of the anecdote. We didn’t discuss pi.
As for the Big Bang, I am agnostic on that. I do not believe ‘big’ stuff physicists tell us, just because they have PhDs in Physics. I know for sure that Clauser, Aspect, and Zeilinger were awarded the 2022 physics Nobel prize in error. Their work is garbage. (See my pinned toots.)
@saxnot Go look up ‘Bertlmann’s Socks and the Nature of Reality’, John Bell’s paper is the classic in the field.
(Clauser has become an infamous climate denier BTW. No shocker if he also does not understand thermodynamics. He is an awful physicist.)
One gets to a part where he ‘encodes local reality’. At this stage he conflates a function representing causal influence with a conditional probability. This is a clear no-no in random process analysis.
So the entire field is garbage.
@saxnot There is really no such thing as a fundamental physicist today. They are pseudoscientists who cannot correctly do mathematics and do not understand what a ‘theorem’ is.
Bell’s paper is freely available in its manuscript form, with a few minor errors.
Much of the paper is handwaving babble.
There are some examples of his logic that he gives for which counterexamples are easily contrived. It is dirt simple to contrive a counterexample to the ‘heart attacks’ logic, for instance.
@saxnot But, as I say, such people as Bell was do not understand what a ‘theorem’ is and so a counterexample is unpersuasive to them.
It is very strange and it renders them pseudoscientists.
@chemoelectric @kohnzn to me it was always intuitive that LLM and the research field of AI have no relation and that cognition is not an emergent property of a large matrix. But you say it's easily proven.
Where can I see that proof?
About four years ago I made bets in regards to this with my stance being the current LLM/GPT wave will not lead to AGI.
"always intuitive" as I say is not a real proof. I would like to know more why/how this is a dead end
@chemoelectric @kohnzn knowledge of the history of Magick is always very helpful for me in reasoning about "AI".
It's something from nothing!
That's a big promise of Magick
@saxnot @kohnzn They aren't really promising something from nothing, though. Their core fallacy is in the use of neural networks. This is the latest attempt to turn neural networks into a "brain".
The fallacy is that, because the human brain is made of components connected to each other with different weights that can be affected by training, then intelligence can be gotten by using components connected with weights affected by training. But it may simply be accident nerve cells work that way!
It remains among the great fallacies of our time that people see Goals in Nature, whereas Nature works entirely by accidents.
The doctor will say that your immune system evolved to protect you from diseases. It did not. It OBVIOUSLY could not have, because Nature does not seek goals.
So then what is the immune system? The answer is obvious from natural selection theory. It is a set of traits that has prevented extirpation of the human population.
It won’t save every child.
RFK Jr suggested letting Bird Flu run rampant through chicken populations to get stronger chickens. This is the same fallacy as ‘AI’ and the ‘Singularity’, really, that building bigger and bigger neural networks will one day give us stronger ‘AI’ and suddenly ZING! THERE IT IS!
But if RFK were right then there would have been no disease already, early in the history of life. Natural immunity is merely traits that have in the past prevented EXTIRPATION. IOW left SOME to live.
@saxnot @kohnzn If you think a chimpanzee or a dog or a cat is a large matrix with emergent properties, rather than a piece of meat with evolved traits, then I cannot help you.
I left the obvious implicit: that intelligence is evolved traits. Those who believe it is anything else are called "dualists" and can be ignored.
@saxnot @kohnzn At most they have been able to give some apes a rudimentary ability to communicate with hand signs.
True language requires INFINITE RECURSION. The ability to construct linguistic structures of indefinite levels of complexity by recursion. No ape can do that. They is not the least empirical evidence of it.
And, in any case, if an ape COULD do it, I would merely change the example animal to a cat. A cat has no language and is yet is also, evolutionarily, nearly the same as us.
@saxnot @kohnzn This has nothing to do with ‘biological vs mechanical’ BTW. It is whether you can model intelligence with recursive language, which is what they are trying to do. They are using a mixture of naïve pattern processing (think ‘Spam Assassin’) and recursive language processing (think ‘Google Translate’). And from that they expect to get human-like intelligence.
Yet actual human-like intelligence MUST resemble the intelligence OF A CAT! So the LLM cannot possibly succeed.
This is why I want them to read ‘Zen in the Art of Archery’. So they might possibly see that there are aspects to intelligence that they are not even aware of.
In that book, the people succeed in hitting bullseyes without aiming at the target. I did something similar with racquetballs. Complete unawareness of aiming. My eyes closed, the target not even within view, anyway. Dead on hit. Repeatable.
To Herrigel this was a mystery. To me it was a spiritual crisis until I figured it out.
@saxnot It is that there is no homunculus. We are almost entirely unconscious beings. My nervous system is perfectly capable of hitting targets without me mucking up the process with chatter.
Nowadays I let myself live without bothering to be a ‘consciousness’. I have to force myself to be ‘conscious’ sometimes, because I have become aware it is largely an aid in remembering things. And so I do it when I want to remember something.
But I often solve problems by STOPPING ‘consciousness’!
@saxnot They are trying to replicate something they do not even TRY to actually understand: human intelligence.
They simply try to replicate their primitive prejudice of what human intelligence ‘is’. And they are merely doing dumb science fiction stuff that isn’t really scientific and is just dumb adolescent fiction.
@chemoelectric @kohnzn it's literially the imitation game by Turing
depending on how smart you are you will believe the LLM has intelligence.
And sadly the average joe fails at this INT check
Perhaps one day when the AI bubble has long burst we can evaluate and use the technology in an appropriate manner.
e. g. Amazon.com makss billions by suggesting similar products based on machine learning.
@chemoelectric @kohnzn few years ago chatbots have been all the craze
chat with a restaurant chat bot to make a reservation
etc.
It was pretty huge in media and now almost noone remembers it because except in very specific niches the chat bots of recent have been died out.
I am not talking about the chat bots from IRC or Discord which have been around for half a century
I wonder about this rise and fall of chat bots
@saxnot I have no problem with that. And Google searching has been greatly improved by the methods.
OTOH Meta AI is the sort of thing that made the cover of ‘Science’ recently. It simply butters you up with praise, while saying essentially nothing.
I got into a chat with it where I repeatedly told it how stupid it was, and it kept praising me for saying so.
@saxnot But I do not think it is low intelligence that causes a person to fall for this stuff. It is people with high IQ who fall for it.
People with high IQ are often people who overcomplicate things and refuse to be quiet and actually observe. So they never notice, for instance, that they know how to eat without talking to themselves, and so that cannot be language-based. Instead they rationalize that maybe there is a linguistic underpinning somehow! They overcomplicate.
@saxnot I like to use as example Neil de Grasse Tyson, who once tweeted that bats gave up their forelimbs to get wings. He no doubt reasoned this out linguistically, in an overcomplicated manner: that you must lose one thing to get another in its place.
But he is SUPPOSED to be a science teacher. He is SUPPOSED to be teaching being quiet and observing. He doesn’t teach that. You can easily find pictures and videos of bats using their wings as forelimbs. Fruit bats, vampire bats, etc.
@saxnot Vampire bats can actually RUN on all four limbs! And fruit bats hold their food with their wings.
(Around the same time he also tweeted that a chain had to be straight to work. This was a more fundamental error, a serious one for someone with a BArts in physics. He assumed a chain with no force of gravity or capstans, pulleys, etc.)
Source? Was it made by so-called AI?
Slavery is violence
KOHN der baba
saxnot ➡️ GPN, RockHarz
Sibrosan
Jennifer Moore 😷
Gavin
Barry Schwartz 🫖
Billy O'Neal
🇺🇦 KrakelOrakel 🌈 RIP Natenom
SabreToothTigress ZenD