• Hackworth@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    5 months ago

    Not OP, but speaking from a fairly deep layman understanding of how LLMs work - all anyone really knows is that capabilities of fundamentally higher orders (like deception, which requires theory of mind) emerged by simply training larger networks. Since we don’t have a great understanding of how our own intelligence emerges from our wetware, we’re only guessing.

    • yuri@pawb.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      5 months ago

      Something that looks like higher order reasoning emerged from training larger networks. At the end of the day it’s still just spicy autocomplete. Theoretically you could give it a large enough dataset to “predict” almost anything with really high accuracy, but all it’s doing is pattern recognition. One could argue that that’s all humans do, but that’s getting more into philosophy and skipping a lot of nuance.

      I’m not like, trying to argue with you by the way. Just having a fun time with this line of thought ^^

      • Hackworth@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        5 months ago

        What makes the “spicy autocomplete” perspective incomplete is also what makes LLMs work. The “Attention is All You Need” paper that introduced attention transformers describes a type of self-awareness necessary to predict the next word. In the process of writing the next word of an essay, it navigates a 22,000-dimensional semantic space, And the similarity to the way humans experience language is more than philosophical - the advancements in LLMs have sparked a bunch of new research in neurology.