undefined

points

[-]

I strongly suspect that if you dug deeply enough into how a human brain does reasoning, the answer would boil down to "it tries a bunch of pathways and picks the one that seems right". Pathways weighted by experience, but ultimately still guess-and-check. What would the alternative be?

Maybe our ability to reason is not as mystical and special as our ego might hope it to be, and discomfort over LLM's bringing that to light is the root of some people's urge to continuously downplay and discredit them.

(As far as I can tell as a non-neuroscientist, the literature on how our default mode network and prefrontal cortex interact agrees with my assessment - free association and logical verification respectively)

by Jensson2 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

You have introspection, you can see a part of your thoughts, you know how that introspective part works since its what we call consciousness, you are conscious about it.

That introspection isn't an illusion, what your consciousness see of your thoughts obviously are tings that has been calculated and aggregated by the brain, so we know the brain calculates and aggregates those thoughts and feelings to produce its results. And we know LLM doesn't do that, it doesn't have a side system that does that sort of introspection.

by jimmaswell2 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

It actually is an illusion though. The narrative the brain makes up after the fact for why we did something is not perfectly correlated with the actual reason. It's just very good at its job of spinning a convincing narrative, even to itself. This is demonstrated in split brain patients: they're given instructions to do something that are shown only to one eye, the one connected to the non-speaking hemisphere, and when asked why they did it, the speaking hemisphere confidently hallucinates a wrong answer that the person seems to fully believe.

by Jensson2 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

> The narrative the brain makes up after the fact for why we did something is not perfectly correlated with the actual reason

But it does that introspection, we evolved to make it. If its not useful for anything we wouldn't have evolved it, it can't have been easy to evolve a consciousness so there has to be purpose for it.

Or do you think our consciousness is a magical ghost thing unrelated to the brains workings? I think its pretty obvious that our smarts in part depend on the computations that results in our conscious experience, you need a very strong argument as to why that wouldn't be the case. And broken brains being broken doesn't answer this.

by vouwfietsman2 hours ago|

prev|

[-]

> I don't think LLM will ever stop being dumb without such an introspective part to them.

The very second they add this part, it will "just be a dumb token predictor with introspection", mark my words.

by Jensson2 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

If it keeps doing dumb things, yeah. But if that actually solves it then those opinions will quickly disappear when it replaces all human white collar work since it does it cheaper and better and faster.

AGI is fairly easy to detect for this reason. Does this system make a majority feel you don't have to hire people anymore? If not its not AGI.

by vouwfietsman1 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

> But if that actually solves it then

Solves what? Chess? No thats not AI, its just a chess bot. Turing test? No, thats not AI, its just a dumb token predictor.

Why would the goalposts stop moving at AGI? I am 100% convinced it will somehow still lack the "gusto" or the "taste" or the "timbre" of real intelligence. You can see it in coding right now, AI has bad "taste" in coding, because really, we can't do a better job critiquing that which is obviously (on occasion) just plain good.

by Jensson1 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

> Solves what? Chess? No thats not AI, its just a chess bot. Turing test? No, thats not AI, its just a dumb token predictor.

You are moving the goalpost here if you think the chess AI was AGI. All those problems were evidence AI wasn't as smart as humans, not goalposts determining when AI is as smart as humans. The first turing test winner wasn't even an LLM, it was an expert system, so we already knew that test wasn't enough for AGI.

by Terr_2 hours ago|

parent|

prev|

[-]

Necessary is not the same as sufficient.

If I want my ox-cart to fly, I need to add wings, but that's probably not all that needs changing.