this post was submitted on 24 Jan 2024
6 points (53.7% liked)

Technology

73967 readers
3299 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

I've been saying this for about a year since seeing the Othello GPT research, but it's nice to see more minds changing as the research builds up.

Edit: Because people aren't actually reading and just commenting based on the headline, a relevant part of the article:

New research may have intimations of an answer. A theory developed by Sanjeev Arora of Princeton University and Anirudh Goyal, a research scientist at Google DeepMind, suggests that the largest of today’s LLMs are not stochastic parrots. The authors argue that as these models get bigger and are trained on more data, they improve on individual language-related abilities and also develop new ones by combining skills in a manner that hints at understanding — combinations that were unlikely to exist in the training data.

This theoretical approach, which provides a mathematically provable argument for how and why an LLM can develop so many abilities, has convinced experts like Hinton, and others. And when Arora and his team tested some of its predictions, they found that these models behaved almost exactly as expected. From all accounts, they’ve made a strong case that the largest LLMs are not just parroting what they’ve seen before.

“[They] cannot be just mimicking what has been seen in the training data,” said Sébastien Bubeck, a mathematician and computer scientist at Microsoft Research who was not part of the work. “That’s the basic insight.”

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] TORFdot0@lemmy.world 50 points 2 years ago (5 children)

Is there a difference between being a "stochastic parrot" and understanding text? No matter what you call it, an LLM will always produces the same output with the same input if it is at the same state.

An LLM will never say "I don't know" unless it's been trained to say "I don't know", it doesn't have the concept of understanding. And so I lean on calling it a "stochastic parrot". Although I think there is some interesting philosophic exercises, you could do on whether humans are much different and if understanding is just an illusion.

[–] FaceDeer@kbin.social 8 points 2 years ago (2 children)

No matter what you call it, an LLM will always produces the same output with the same input if it is at the same state.

How do you know a human wouldn't do the same? We lack the ability to perform the experiment.

An LLM will never say “I don’t know” unless it’s been trained to say “I don’t know”

Also a very human behaviour, in my experience.

[–] TORFdot0@lemmy.world 7 points 2 years ago (1 children)

How do you know a human wouldn't do the same? We lack the ability to perform the experiment.

I agree with you, I think its an interesting philosophical debate on whether we truly have free will, if we really have a level of understanding beyond LLMs do or if we are just a greatly more complex, biological version of an LLM. Like you said, we lack the ability to perform the experiment so I have to assume that our reactions are novel and spontaneous.

[–] QuadratureSurfer@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Fun thought experiment:

Let's say we have a time machine and we can go back in time to a specific moment to observe how someone reacts to something.

If that person reacts the same way every time, does that mean that by knowing what they would do, you have removed their free will?

[–] TORFdot0@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago (1 children)

If you could travel back in time and observe a person over and over again react the same way is it different from observing a video tape?

Does traveling back in time guarantee that someone would react the same way in the same situation even?

[–] QuadratureSurfer@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago

is it different from observing a video tape?

I would think that it's different, only because you have the potential to alter what could happen.

Does traveling back in time guarantee that someone would react the same way in the same situation even?

Maybe, maybe not, we're entering the realm of Schrödinger's cat as well as how time travel would actually work. Do we create some new branched timeline in travelling back? Do we enter an alternate universe entirely? Do we have a time machine where paradoxes are a problem? And the list can go on.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
[–] BetaDoggo_@lemmy.world 29 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

The definition of understanding they use is very shallow compared to how most would define it. Failure to complete a task consistently when numbers are changed, even when they don't effect the answer shows a lack of real understanding to most. Asking a model the sheet drying question for example will give different results depending on what numbers you use. Better models are better at generalizing but are still far from demonstrating what most consider to be real understanding.

[–] Wiggums@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago (1 children)

at some point don't we just load it with every angle we (as humans) have and from there it can derrive not only our best answer but the better one as well? I mean isn't that when even the shitty version of this ursups is?

[–] BetaDoggo_@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago

A language model can't determine good from bad because it's only trained to predict the next token based on what it has seen.

[–] bionicjoey@lemmy.ca 25 points 2 years ago (15 children)

Ask them to explain why a pun is funny or the solution to a riddle involving wordplay (cryptic crossword clues are particularly good for this) and you will quickly see they don't actually understand words.

[–] PerogiBoi@lemmy.ca 6 points 2 years ago (6 children)

I just did and it seems to understand.

Prompt: Can you explain why “I knew a woman who owned a taser. Man, was she stunning!” Is funny?

ChatGPT 3.5: The humor in this statement arises from a play on words. The word "stunning" is typically used to describe someone's appearance, suggesting they are exceptionally attractive. However, in this context, it's used in a different way, implying that the woman who owned a taser was stunning in the sense of being capable of stunning or shocking others. The unexpected twist creates a humorous juxtaposition between the two meanings of "stunning."

[–] FaceDeer@kbin.social 5 points 2 years ago

I did some playing around with ChatGPT's understanding of jokes a while back and I found that it actually did best on understanding puns, which IMO isn't surprising since it's a large language model and puns are deeply rooted in language and wordplay. It didn't so so well at jokes based on other things but it still sometimes managed to figure them out too.

I remember discussing the subject in a Reddit thread and there was a commenter who was super enthused by the notion of an AI that understood humour because he himself was autistic and never "got" any jokes. He wanted an AI companion that would let him at least know when a joke was being said, so he wouldn't get confused and flustered. I had to warn him that ChatGPT wasn't reliable for that yet, but still, it did better than he did and he was fully human.

[–] Redacted@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago

The key word here is "seems".

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] TORFdot0@lemmy.world 4 points 2 years ago

A child under a certain age usually can't explain advanced concepts either, so the inability to understand one concept doesn't preclude understanding of others.

load more comments (13 replies)
[–] kaffiene@lemmy.world 20 points 2 years ago

I find this extraordinarily unconvincing. Firstly it's based on the idea that random graphs are a great model for LLMs because they share a single superficial similarity. That's not science, that's poetry. Secondly, the researchers completely misunderstand how LLMs work. The assertion that a sentence could not have appeared in the training set does not prove anything. That's expected behaviour. "stochastic parrot" wasn't supposed to mean that it only regurgitates text that it's already seen, rather that the text is a statistically plausible response to the input text based on very high dimensional feature vectors. Those features definitely could relate to what we think of as meaning or concepts, but they're meaning or concepts that were inherent in the training material.

[–] gregorum@lemm.ee 12 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

That headline is unintentionally hilarious

[–] superfes@lemmy.world 11 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Stupid, LLMs do not create new relationships to words that don't exist.

This is all just fluff to make them seem more like AGI, which they never will be.

[–] GnomeKat@lemmy.blahaj.zone 5 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Why would that be required for understanding? Presumably during the training it would have made connections between words it saw. Now that the training has stopped it hasn't just lost those connections, sure it can't make new connections but why is that important for using the connections it already has?

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Redacted@lemmy.world 10 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (23 children)

I have a theory... They are sophisticated auto-complete.

load more comments (23 replies)
[–] ristoril_zip@lemmy.zip 9 points 2 years ago (14 children)

If we can't really define "understand" in a way that meaningfully captures the concept of consciousness (also undefined), we definitely can't say a chat bot "understands."

They can parse a chat and come up with a likely response that humans find applicable.

load more comments (14 replies)
[–] nullpotential@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 2 years ago

New theory wrong.

load more comments
view more: next ›