The University of Turku in Finland is developing an artificial language corpus proficient in all European languages, including Estonian, to preserve minor languages in the post-ChatGPT era. The Estonian Language Institute (EKI) supports the initiative but warns that an operational language model requires digitizing substantially more Estonian texts than is currently available.
  •  Communist   ( @communist@beehaw.org ) English
    1•8 months ago

    You are vastly more complex than an LLM. There are hundreds of neural transmitters. 20 billion neocortical neurons and 7 thousand connections per neuron. A naive complexity of 2.8e16 combinations. Each thought tweaking those ~7000 connections as it passes from neuron to neuron.

    Aware and irrelevant, if anything that helps my point.

    The brains training that model are not that model. They are what does the thinking, the model is nothing more than a black box of statistical analysis that spits out stats in a human digestible format.

    The brains training that model are thinking, in the exact same way that the AI is. You can pretend that isn’t thinking all you want, but what it’s doing is quite obviously reasoning in tokens.

    It’s Stochastic: entirely based on statistical probabilities with no reasoning behind any of its outputs. It’s a parrot in that it can only construct that which has been fed to it as an output. It’s not “thinking in Estonian”: Estonian had been programmed into it either directly via Estonian language material being introduced or indirectly by Estonian patterns matching other similarly trained languages.

    So are you. As we scale up, they quite obviously get better at reasoning, just like you said, we’re a much more complex version of this, it’s still bad at it, because it’s tiny. In your mind, how does thinking work, if not in the exact same way LLM’s do that?

    Gpt4 still hallucinates all the time. It still fails to reason.

    Sometimes it fails to reason, sometimes it hallucinates… so do you. Have you never accidentally said something false? Have you never failed to reason? Consider the following: the thoughts you actually share are a much smaller, filtered version of the thoughts that go on in your head, you’ve censored a massive portion of your thoughts, and you don’t share the bad ones, you’re the same, you just have a filter. You’re a much more complex, significantly more performant, significantly better version of an LLM that converts your sensations into muscle movements.

    It is not doing novel things: it’s doing exactly what it has always done in unexpected ways but that’s very different from intelligence and thinking. What’s tripping people up is they’ve never interacted with anything that had the width of knowledge readily available. The complexity of encoding the entire world makes a huge surface where anyone can interact with it and get reasonable responses. That doesn’t make it reasoning, just that it has a very detailed latent space which is very good at natural language queries.

    You have not demonstrated the difference, you’ve demonstrated that they’re worse at it, and you even explained WHY, they’re much smaller. That is exactly how the neural network in the brain works, you just want to say that your brain is magical. Yes, it is worse at reasoning than humans, but as demonstrated in that link, it gets better and better with size, unless you believe that the instructions for stacking every single object exists online, you have to accept that while these models are tiny, they’re already beginning to reason in the exact same way you do.

    •  huginn   ( @huginn@feddit.it ) 
      1•8 months ago

      My comments are intended to show that an LLM had enormous complexity to represent data but no understanding of data.

      My opinion here is in line with the top AI research consensus: LLMs do not understand anything, they’re very fancy dictionaries that use natural language as queries.

      Your consciousness and intelligence and “thinking” is not as simple as 96 layers of nodes cascading through each other. Your brain has closed loops: complexity hundreds of orders of magnitude more than an LLM.

      The fact that something so simple tricks so many people is proof that it isn’t conscious. No brain as simple as an LLM is one we consider self aware. We don’t say lobsters think in Estonian.

      LLMs aren’t as smart as even dogs, they aren’t “true ai” and we don’t even know what that entails and more likely than not: they’re just a waste of time in our search for true AI. They don’t think: they’re predicting text based on lossy encoding and training.

      But I know I’m not going to convince you of anything here: you’ve made up your mind and it won’t be changed. Probably because nobody can reach in there and manually adjust your weights.

      So agree to disagree. I know you’re wrong, you know you’re right.

      •  Communist   ( @communist@beehaw.org ) English
        1•8 months ago

        There is no consensus on this, some say they do, some say they don’t, i’ve read both sides extensively and have determined that it is obvious they are currently less intelligent than dogs, duh, what a shifted goalpost, dogs are highly intelligent, that is obvious, because their scale is nowhere near a dog brain. It is an open question if scaling solves this, but I think the potential with scaling is obvious due to two simple facts:

        1. Human brains work using the same unit parts, the structure is more complex, and number of connections is much higher, but none the less we are neural networks.
        2. Scaling has already been demonstrated to improve things.

        You shouldn’t pretend a consensus has been reached based on those few articles, that is simply not the case. They also all pretend intelligence is magic and that we’ve reached a dead end, neither is true, one could say you don’t think, you predict muscle movements… You seem to not realize in order to predict text accurately you must reason. I’m fully aware they are advanced text predictors, but you are the same.

        You should study neuroscience, you’ll find the purpose of a brain is to predict. “True AI” is just an endlessly shifting goalpost. It won’t be one until it is the size of a human brain, expecting a much smaller brain to outperform ours is silly.