• Optional@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    60
    ·
    23 days ago

    Did someone not know this like, pretty much from day one?

    Not the idiot executives that blew all their budget on AI and made up for it with mass layoffs - the people interested in it. Was that not clear that there was no “reasoning” going on?

    • khalid_salad@awful.systems
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      36
      ·
      edit-2
      23 days ago

      Well, two responses I have seen to the claim that LLMs are not reasoning are:

      1. we are all just stochastic parrots lmao
      2. maybe intelligence is an emergent ability that will show up eventually (disregard the inability to falsify this and the categorical nonsense that is our definition of “emergent”).

      So I think this research is useful as a response to these, although I think “fuck off, promptfondler” is pretty good too.

      • LainTrain@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        18
        ·
        23 days ago

        Well are we not stochastic parrots then? Isn’t this a philosophical, rhetorical and equally unfalsifiable question to answer also?

        • FermiEstimate@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          23
          ·
          23 days ago

          No, there’s an actual paper where that term originated that goes into great deal explaining what it means and what it applies to. It answers those questions and addresses potential objections people might respond with.

          There’s no need for–and, frankly, nothing interesting about–“but, what is truth, really?” vibes-based takes on the term.

        • V0ldek@awful.systems
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          12
          ·
          edit-2
          22 days ago

          Only in the philosophical sense of all of physics being a giant stochastic system.

          But that’s equally useful as saying that we’re Turing machines? Yes, if you draw a broad category of “all things that compute in our universe” then you can make a reasonable (but disputable!) argument that both me and a Python interpreter are in the same category of things. That doesn’t mean that a Python interpreter is smart/sentient/will solve climate change/whatever Sammy Boi wants to claim this week.

          Or, to use a different analogy, it’s like saying “we’re all just cosmic energy, bro”. Yes we are, pass the joint already and stop trying to raise billions of dollars for your energy woodchipper.

    • froztbyte@awful.systems
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      28
      ·
      23 days ago

      there’s a lot of people (especially here, but not only here) who have had the insight to see this being the case, but there’s also been a lot of boosters and promptfondlers (ie. people with a vested interest) putting out claims that their precious word vomit machines are actually thinking

      so while this may confirm a known doubt, rigorous scientific testing (and disproving) of the claims is nonetheless a good thing

      • Soyweiser@awful.systems
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        12
        ·
        23 days ago

        No they do not im afraid, hell I didnt even know that even ELIZA caused people to think it could reason (and this worried the creator) until a few years ago.

    • astrsk@fedia.io
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      23 days ago

      Isn’t OpenAI saying that o1 has reasoning as a specific selling point?

    • conciselyverbose@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      edit-2
      23 days ago

      Yes.

      But the lies around them are so excessive that it’s a lot easier for executives of a publicly traded company to make reasonable decisions if they have concrete support for it.

    • A_Very_Big_Fan@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      21 days ago

      Seriously, I’ve seen 100x more headlines like this than people claiming LLMs can reason. Either they don’t understand, or think we don’t understand what “artificial” means.

  • Optional@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    30
    ·
    23 days ago

    We suspect this research is likely part of why Apple pulled out of the recent OpenAI funding round at the last minute.

    Perhaps the AI bros “think” by guessing the next word and hoping it’s convincing. They certainly argue like it.

    🔥

    • V0ldek@awful.systems
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      17
      ·
      edit-2
      22 days ago

      This has been said multiple times but I don’t think it’s possible to internalize because of how fucking bleak it is.

      The VC/MBA class thinks all communication can be distilled into saying the precise string of words that triggers the stochastically desired response in the consumer. Conveying ideas or information is not the point. This is why ChatGPT seems like the holy grail to them, it effortlessly1 generates mountains of corporate slop that carry no actual meaning. It’s all form and no substance, because those people – their entire existence, the essence of their cursed dark souls – has no substance.

      1 batteries not included

      • Optional@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        22 days ago

        I think you’re right. But they’re wrong. And only the chowderheads who don’t interact with customers or service personnel would believe that crap. Now, that’s not to say they can’t raise a generation that does believe that crap.

        Hence the bleakness.

        • V0ldek@awful.systems
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          10
          ·
          21 days ago

          I am so cynical at this point I am fully bought into the idea that these chowderheads don’t even interact with reality, just with the PowerPoint and Jira-driven shadows on the wall.

    • lunarul@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      edit-2
      23 days ago

      Perhaps the AI bros “think” by guessing the next word and hoping it’s convincing

      Perhaps? Isn’t that the definition of LLMs?

      Edit: oh, i just realized it’s not talking about the LLMs, but about their apologists

  • EnderMB@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    17
    arrow-down
    14
    ·
    edit-2
    22 days ago

    “sigh”

    (Preface: I work in AI)

    This isn’t news. We’ve known this for many, many years. It’s one of the reasons why many companies didn’t bother using LLM’s in the first place, that paired with the sheer amount of hallucinations you’ll get that’ll often utterly destroy a company’s reputation (lol Google).

    With that said, for commercial services that use LLM’s, it’s absolutely not true. The models won’t reason, but many will have separate expert agents or API endpoints that it will be told to use to disambiguate or better understand what is being asked, what context is needed, etc.

    It’s kinda funny, because many AI bros rave about how LLM’s are getting super powerful, when in reality the real improvements we’re seeing is in smaller models that teach a LLM about things like Personas, where to seek expert opinion, what a user “might” mean if they misspell something or ask for something out of context, etc. The LLM’s themselves are only slightly getting better, but the thing that preceded them is propping them up to make them better

    IMO, LLM’s are what they are, a good way to spit information out fast. They’re an orchestration mechanism at best. When you think about them this way, every improvement we see tends to make a lot of sense. The article is kinda true, but not in the way they want it to be.

    • V0ldek@awful.systems
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      23
      ·
      22 days ago

      (Preface: I work in AI)

      Are they a serious researcher in ML with insights into some of the most interesting and complicated intersections of computer science and analytical mathematics, or a promptfondler that earns 3x the former’s salary for a nebulous AI startup that will never create anything of value to society? Read on to find out!

    • blakestacey@awful.systems
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      edit-2
      22 days ago

      (Preface: I work in AI)

      Preface: repent for your sins in sackcloth and ashes.

      IMO, LLM’s are what they are, a good way to spit information out fast.

      Buh bye now.

  • masterplan79th@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    18
    ·
    23 days ago

    When you ask an LLM a reasoning question. You’re not expecting it to think for you, you’re expecting that it has crawled multiple people asking semantically the same question and getting semantically the same answer, from other people, that are now encoded in its vectors.

    That’s why you can ask it. because it encodes semantics.

    • ebu@awful.systems
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      25
      ·
      23 days ago

      because it encodes semantics.

      if it really did so, performance wouldn’t swing up or down when you change syntactic or symbolic elements of problems. the only information encoded is language-statistical

    • self@awful.systems
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      23
      ·
      23 days ago

      thank you for bravely rushing in and providing yet another counterexample to the “but nobody’s actually stupid enough to think they’re anything more than statistical language generators” talking point

    • leftzero@lemmynsfw.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      19
      ·
      23 days ago

      Paraphrasing Neil Gaiman, LLMs don’t give you information; they give you information shaped sentences.

      They don’t encode semantics. They encode the statistical likelihood that each token will follow a given sequence of tokens.

      • LainTrain@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        11
        ·
        23 days ago

        It’s worth pointing out that it does happen to reconstruct information remarkably well considering it’s just likelihood. They’re pretty useful tools like any other, it’s funny ofc to watch silicon valley stumble all over each other chasing the next smartphone.

        • V0ldek@awful.systems
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          11
          ·
          22 days ago

          The only remarkable thing is how fucking easy it is to convince the median consumer that vaguely-correct-shape sentences are correct.

    • V0ldek@awful.systems
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      22 days ago

      because it encodes semantics.

      Please enlighten me on how? I admit I don’t know all the internals of the transformer model, but from what I know it encodes precisely only syntactical information, i.e. what next syntactical token is most likely to follow based on a syntactical context window.

      How does it encode semantics? What is the semantics that it encodes? I doubt they have denatotational or operational semantics of natural language, I don’t think something like that even exists, so it has to be some smaller model. Actually, it would be enlightening if you could tell me at least what the semantical domain here is, because I don’t think there’s any naturally obvious choice for that.

    • sc_griffith@awful.systems
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      edit-2
      22 days ago

      guy who totally gets what these words mean: “an llm simply encodes the semantics into the vectors”

      • self@awful.systems
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        15
        ·
        22 days ago

        all you gotta do is, you know, ground the symbols, and as long as you’re writing enough Lisp that should be sufficient for GAI

    • V0ldek@awful.systems
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      25
      ·
      22 days ago

      It’s always funny to see this because you think that you’re part of the smart 10% with original thoughts while actually you’re the insufferable 10% whose only thought is that of superiority with nothing to back it up.

      My cat has more original thoughts than that and he’s currently stuck head-first in a cereal box.

      • self@awful.systems
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        20
        ·
        22 days ago

        it’s not shocking because we’ve seen worse, but it is remarkable how fascist the implications of this “most people don’t possess cognition” idea are

        it’s also very funny how many of these presumed cognition-havers have come to this thread and our instance in general with effectively the same lazy, shitty, thoughtless take on the nature of humanity

        • self@awful.systems
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          17
          ·
          22 days ago

          actually speaking of fascism, I took a quick look at our guest’s post history:

          • African countries and IQ
          • COVID conspiracy theories
          • constant right-wing conspiracies in general really
          • fucking links to voat and zerohedge
          • there’s more but I tapped out early
          • froztbyte@awful.systems
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            8
            ·
            21 days ago

            constant right-wing conspiracies in general really

            I did not expect to check and see some shit straight out of the Deus Ex storyline

            aaaaaand now I’m going to put on the soundtrack again. would love to also make the morning disappear by playing it, but apple silicon

    • Mii@awful.systems
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      16
      ·
      edit-2
      22 days ago

      You guys always come crawling out from whatever rock you’re hiding under for these posts as if someone saying LLMs aren’t smart makes your spider senses tingle.

      It would be almost impressive if it weren’t so stupid.

  • curiousaur@reddthat.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    17
    ·
    22 days ago

    People keep saying this, but I’m not convinced our own brains are doing anything more.

    • self@awful.systems
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      32
      ·
      22 days ago

      thinking is so easy to model when you don’t do it and assume nobody else does either

    • Allonzee@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      16
      ·
      edit-2
      22 days ago

      Let the haters hate.

      Despite the welcome growth of atheism, almost all humans at one level or another cling to the idea that our monkey brains are filled with some magic miraculous light that couldn’t possibly be replicated. The reality is that some of us only have glimmers of sapience, and many not even that. Most humans, most of the time, are mindless zombies following a script, whether due to individual capacity, or a civilization that largely doesn’t reward metacognition or pondering the questions that matter, as that doesn’t immediately feed individual productivity or make anyone materially wealthier, that maze doesn’t lead to any yummy cheese for us.

      AI development isn’t finally progressing quickly and making people uncomfortable with its capability because it’s catching up to our supposedly transcendental superbrains (that en masse spent hundreds of thousands of years wandering around in the dirt before it finally occurred to any of them that we could grow food seasonally in one place). It’s making a lot of humans uncomfortable because it’s demonstrating that there isn’t a whole hell of a lot to catch up to, especially for an average human.

      There’s a reason pretty much everyone immediately discarded the Turing Test and basically called it a bullshit metric after elevating it for decades as a major benchmark in the development of AI systems… The moment a technology and design that could readily pass it became available. That’s the blind hubris of man on grand display.

      • Al0neStar@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        19
        ·
        edit-2
        22 days ago

        Creationists: We don’t understand the brain so it must be the work of god.

        AI Worshipers: We don’t understand the brain so it must work exactly like LLMs.

        • self@awful.systems
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          14
          ·
          22 days ago

          see I was just gonna go for “promptfondlin” but I’m glad I hesitated cause this is my new favorite ban reason

          • David Gerard@awful.systemsOPM
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            11
            ·
            22 days ago

            I used to do this and it helped my mental state a lot. LSD refresh every 6-12 months.

            gasbag with occasional live one, the most tragic form of bad poster

        • bitofhope@awful.systems
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          13
          ·
          22 days ago

          I think I’ll start using “metacognition” in a derogatory way. What a metacognitive post.

          The reality is that some of us only have glimmers of sapience, and many not even that.

          Funny how all the people saying this always include themselves in the select few sapient ones.

          Where does this NPC meme even come from? It’s one thing to think most people are stupid or conformist or susceptible to propaganda, but believing a large fraction of the population are “mindless zombies following a script” goes beyond simple arrogance to straight up delusion.

          Yea, most people don’t think about some things I care about as deeply as I do. As if that means they don’t have their own internal life going on.

            • bitofhope@awful.systems
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              13
              ·
              22 days ago

              It did in fact come from the *chans, but what I’m wondering is how it became a thing. Anons making wild leaps of logic after being told some people don’t experience verbal inner monologue is still a couple steps removed from the kind of right wing mainstreaming of the weird idea that most people supposedly lack sentience.

              I guess the supposed appeal is in the implicit dehumanization and racism.

              • froztbyte@awful.systems
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                9
                ·
                22 days ago

                I guess the supposed appeal is in the implicit dehumanization and racism.

                yeah, that’s actually how I’ve always read it. looking at people in lives stretched to the limit of tolerance by the pure drive for survival, and instead of having a fucking lick of empathy and going “wow yeah, all this is kinda shitty, maybe we should change it” they go “oh yeah very clearly this person is incapable of self-directed behaviour and action”

      • rook@awful.systems
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        16
        ·
        22 days ago

        The reality is that some of us only have glimmers of sapience, and many not even that. Most humans, most of the time, are mindless zombies following a script

        It’s a funny thing, that there are certain kinds of people who are assured of their own cleverness and so alienated from society that they think that echoing the same dehumanising blurb produced by so many of their forebears is somehow novel or informative, rather than just following a script.

        (the irony of responding with an xkcd is not lost on me)

        Much like the promptfondlers proudly claiming they are stochastic parrots, flaunting your inability to recognise intelligence in other humans isn’t a great flex.

        • zogwarg@awful.systems
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          13
          ·
          22 days ago

          How nice it must be to never ponder how large humanity is, and how each and every person you see outside has a full and rich interior and exterior world, and you that only see a tiny fraction of the people outside.

          Personally one of my “oh other people are real!” moment, was when our parents (along with my sisters) took us on a surprise ferry trip to England (from France) and our grandparents that—at least as far as kid me remembered—we only ever saw in their home city, were waiting for us in Portsmouth, and we visited the city together (Portsmouth Historic Dockyard is quite nice btw).

          I knew they were real, but realizing that they weren’t geo-locked, made me more fully internalize that they had full and independent lives, and therefore that everyone had.


          How about people here? When did you realize people are real?

          • swlabr@awful.systems
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            13
            ·
            22 days ago

            How about people here? When did you realize people are real?

            When I moved out for the first real time. I realised my parents were whole human beings in their own right, and by extension every other person in the world.

            I know that might make me sound stupid as I was an adult when I had that realisation. I mean it as the first time I really understood and internalised that idea. Everyone is on their own journey. Also not disputing me being a dumbass, there is plenty I do not know.

          • V0ldek@awful.systems
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            12
            ·
            22 days ago

            How nice it must be to never ponder how large humanity is, and how each and every person you see outside has a full and rich interior and exterior world, and you that only see a tiny fraction of the people outside.

            I don’t think that’s nice. That sounds extremely bleak and depressive, not to mention downright sociopathic.

            • zogwarg@awful.systems
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              5
              ·
              edit-2
              22 days ago

              I wouldn’t swap it for the world ^^, but maybe a tad fewer existantial crises would be nice (no monkey-paw curls plz)

              • V0ldek@awful.systems
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                7
                ·
                22 days ago

                To respond to this part:

                How about people here? When did you realize people are real?

                I just have this basic human feeling of appreciation whenever someone close goes out of their way to do something nice for me. It’s always this reminder of hey, I exist in other peoples’ lives as well, isn’t that cool!

          • sc_griffith@awful.systems
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            10
            ·
            22 days ago

            How about people here? When did you realize people are real?

            still difficult for me, I think it’s part of my flavor of autism

          • bitofhope@awful.systems
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            7
            ·
            21 days ago

            I don’t remember a time when I didn’t understand everyone else had a life and thoughts of their own, just like I do. Maybe it helps that I grew up with a sibling of a similar age.

          • self@awful.systems
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            15
            ·
            22 days ago

            I wonder if any of the people about to downvote your comments are the weird non-sapient humans who work exactly like LLMs you seem to think exist, or maybe your posts are just inane promptfondling horseshit we’ve seen before

      • V0ldek@awful.systems
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        13
        ·
        22 days ago

        The reality is that some of us only have glimmers of sapience, and many not even that.

        Choose your sneer answer:

        1. Wow, that’s not at all how a human brain should work, sounds like a serious medical condition, I would see a neurologist.
        2. Weird flex, but okay.