• ramble81@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    4 months ago

    Seriously the sheer amount of people that equate coherent speech with sentience is mind boggling.

    All jokes aside, I have heard some decently educated technical people say “yeah, it’s really creepy that it put a random laugh in what it said” or “it broke the 4th wall when talking”… it’s fucking programmed to do that and you just walked right in to it.

      • chaogomu@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        4 months ago

        The difference is knowledge. You know what an apple is. A LLM does not. It has training data that has the word apple is associated with the words red, green, pie, and doctor.

        The model then uses a random number generator to mix those words up a bit, and see if the result looks a bit like the training data, and if it does, the model spits out a sequence of words that may or may not be a sentence, depending on the size and quality of the training data.

        At no point is any actual meaning associated with any of the words. The model is just trying to fit different shaped blocks through different shaped holes, and sometimes everything goes through the square hole, and you get hallucinations.

          • Catoblepas@piefed.blahaj.zone
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            4 months ago

            but it’s essentially the same thing, just much much more complex

            If you say that all your statements and beliefs are a slurry of weighted averages depending on how often you’ve seen something without any thought or analysis involved, I will believe you 🤷‍♂️

              • Catoblepas@piefed.blahaj.zone
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                4 months ago

                In fact, since we do know the basic fundamentals of how brains work, it would seem that’s exactly what’s happening.

                I encourage you to try to find and cite any reputable neuroscientist that believes we can even quantify what thought is, much less believes both A) we ‘know the basic fundamentals of how brains work’ and B) it’s just like an LLM.

                Your argument isn’t a line of reasoning invented by neuroscientists, it’s one invented by people who need to sell more AI processors. I know which group I think has a better handle on the brain.

          • Jared White ✌️ [HWC]@humansare.social
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            4 months ago

            You think you are saying things which proves you are knowledgeable on this topic, but you are not.

            The human brain is not a computer. And any comparisons between the two are wildly simplistic and likely to introduce more error than meaning into the discourse.

    • Clay_pidgin@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      4 months ago

      Of course it’s creepy. Why wouldn’t it be? Someone programmed it to do that, or programmed it in such a way that it weighted those additions. That’s weird.