upvote
You're confusing the training method with the internal process. If I had you repeatedly attempt to learn how to make believable completions of partial documents about a given topic, you would eventually learn things about that topic and could use your knowledge to create more believable completions of documents about that topic.
reply
LLMs do not learn. You put it out to pasture and create a new one. "Memory" in a session is essentially a context window party trick.
reply
They learn during training, which is what we're talking about.
reply
>which is what we're talking about.

You are anyway, I don't see anyone up the chain saying that.

reply
They already learned. A lot or basically everything evern written and available digital.

And context window work very well. You can 'teach' an llm a new programming lanuage and other things through it.

reply
They do learn in context, and very sample efficiently. Continual learning is active area of research and we sort of already have something resembling it with persistent context. So yes they do learn.
reply
I consider that to be the illusion of learning. You are not wrong, I think they may actually learn in the future though. But not today.
reply
That’s strange to me, what would you define as learning?
reply
To acquire new knowledge and build your understanding. They don’t understand so they can’t learn
reply
The LLM itself doesn't, but agents can research, compare, add to their memory, and use that to narrow the results down to a probabilistically higher set of outputs; I have used an LLM for my own MRI results and it was nearly spot-on, verified by a subsequent visit to a specialist. YMMV as they say. But I do believe we are entering the era where LLMs are considering past interactions and long context windows to inform it of personal preferences and history in order to output more accurate results.
reply
believable != true
reply
This is what Stephen Colbert called "truthiness". People want to believe what they feel is true even if it is directly contradicted by evidence.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truthiness

reply
A very important callout. It's the crux of the whole thing really. Humans are easily susceptible to deception by statements that are structured to be believable.
reply
Sure. But that's not the subject.
reply
Please stop trying to police what the subject is to suit your own arguments.
reply
That presumes that we have a definition of "thinking" or that we know that anything is "thinking" when in fact neither is true.

The problem is real but I don't think positing a philosophical root is helpful

reply
The claim that we are assigning human-like agency to a machine with none is simple and factual.
reply
What's "thinking"? What's "agency"? What's "human-like agency"?

If "agency" is making decisions and performing corresponding actions in the real world, then LLMs most definitely LOOK LIKE they're making decisions (what's the next token? which tool to use? what's to say, in general? what idea to convey?) and performing actions (tool use). Can we tell whether they are ACTUALLY making decisions? Well, are the people around me "actually" making decisions? Or are they simply pushed around by circumstances and external forces?

Am I actually making decisions? Did I like DECIDE to write this comment? Maybe? I have no clue...

reply
I think you're mildly obfuscating the issues at hand by diving too deeply into philosophical questions.

It's quite simple, the agency that the LLM appears to have is actually your own. Without a prompt an LLM does nothing. It has no thoughts between prompts about you or your problems.

reply
Yes, I'm diving a bit too deeply because I don't really know what "thinking" is and therefore I don't understand how we can so confidently say that LLMs don't think, even though they definitely LOOK like they're thinking. They even have a "Thinking" section in their responses! If I say that a rock doesn't think, it's pretty convincing: does a rock look like it's thinking? No — it doesn't even do anything! But an LLM does look like it's thinking, at least while generating a response. When it's "offline" it's just a bunch of "dead" bytes, sure.

So when it's not active, not responding to a prompt, it's of course not thinking. I'm pretty sure nobody actually questions this. Is your computer "thinking" when it's powered off? Can a piece of metal think? Probably not. So there are no thoughts between prompts, this seems obvious.

Thus, this is a question of "discrete time vs continuous time". LLMs "live" from prompt to prompt. Humans are alive continuously. In some sense, we're prompted by a lot of things all the time. As I'm writing this, I'm seeing stuff, I'm hearing stuff, I can feel various parts of my body, I'm thinking about my problems, my goals, other people's problems and goals, etc. When I'm in a sensory deprivation tank, my brain keeps "entertaining" me by "self-prompting", like a recurrent neural network (I guess it literally is a massive RNN).

So it seems like your definition of "thinking" hinges upon the LLMs being discrete-time and single-threaded (can't think about multiple things in parallel).

IMO a more interesting question is whether an LLM is thinking WHILE IT'S GENERATING A RESPONSE, while it's "alive".

reply
I want to say I really appreciate that you are putting a lot of thought into this, you certainly have interesting concepts here. However I think it seems a bit far off from the discussion I'm trying to have, and I do not have the bandwidth to fully understand and charitably respond to your points.
reply
We don't know what thinking is but pattern matching is definitely a big part of it. That's why people see Jesus on a piece of burnt toast.
reply
You are implying definitions that don't seem to be mainstream; thinking is internally manipulating information to reason, infer, plan, solve problems, and form judgments or beliefs. Also -- "Without a prompt an LLM does nothing. It has no thoughts between prompts about you or your problems." it sounds like you paint this like it's something fundamental? It isn't. Nothing is stopping you from streaming information to an LLM and letting it process this information, this is precisely what people are trying to build.
reply
The machines have no driving force to act in the world. That is fundamental for humans.

Twice in your comment you suggest things that you think that I believe, please do not do this.

reply
The idea that humans have agency is supernatural thinking imo
reply
A free will versus determinism argument doesn't really have a place here. Consider instead that humans factually have 'the illusion of agency.' The LLM does not even that have that. It cannot act on it's own, it has no ongoing drama or intention. It only reacts to prompts.
reply
Often times the words produced do have legitimate factual information though. It's less psychosis and more a confluence of well known human tendencies - salience bias, automation bias, etc.
reply
The big problem is often times they don't as well. That's why we can't rely on them.
reply
Same with humans? Doctors, scientists...if a tool has any error rate above zero its not reliable?
reply