People are just as bad as my LLMs(wilsoniumite.com)
wilsoniumite.com
People are just as bad as my LLMs
https://wilsoniumite.com/2025/03/10/people-are-just-as-bad-as-my-llms/
172 comments
I don’t disagree. But I also wonder if there even is an objective “right” answer in a lot of cases. If the goal is for computers to replace humans in a task, then the computer can only get the right answer for that task if humans agree what the right answer is. Outside of STEM, where AI is already having a meaningful impact (at least in my opinion), I’m not sure humans actually agree that there is a right answer in many cases, let alone what the right answer is. From that perspective, correctness is in the eye of the beholder (or the metric), and “correct” AI is somewhere between poorly defined and a contradiction.
Also, I think it’s apparent that the world won’t wait for correct AI, whatever that even is, whether or not it even can exist, before it adopts AI. It sure looks like some employers are hurtling towards replacing (or, at least, reducing) human headcount with AI that performs below average at best, and expecting whoever’s left standing to clean up the mess. This will free up a lot of talent, both the people who are cut and the people who aren’t willing to clean up the resulting mess, for other shops that take a more human-based approach to staffing.
I’m looking forward to seeing which side wins. I don’t expect it to be cut-and-dry. But I do expect it to be interesting.
Also, I think it’s apparent that the world won’t wait for correct AI, whatever that even is, whether or not it even can exist, before it adopts AI. It sure looks like some employers are hurtling towards replacing (or, at least, reducing) human headcount with AI that performs below average at best, and expecting whoever’s left standing to clean up the mess. This will free up a lot of talent, both the people who are cut and the people who aren’t willing to clean up the resulting mess, for other shops that take a more human-based approach to staffing.
I’m looking forward to seeing which side wins. I don’t expect it to be cut-and-dry. But I do expect it to be interesting.
Does "knowing what today is" count as "Outside STEM"? Coz my interactions with LLMs are certainly way worse than most people.
Just tried it:
Most real actual human people would either know the date, check their phone or their watch or be like "Oh, that's a good question lol!". But somehow GPTs always be the 1% of people that will lie to know the answer to whatever question you ask them. You know, the kind that evening talk shows will ask ask. Questions like "how do do chickens lay eggs" and you get all sorts of totally completely b0nkers but entirely "confidently told" answers. And of course they only show the ones that give the b0nkers con-man answers. Or the obviously funnily stupid people.
Of course absent access to a "get the current date" function it makes sense why an LLM would behave like it does. But it also means: not AGI, sorry.
Just tried it:
tell me the current date please
Today's date is October 3, 2023.
Most real actual human people would either know the date, check their phone or their watch or be like "Oh, that's a good question lol!". But somehow GPTs always be the 1% of people that will lie to know the answer to whatever question you ask them. You know, the kind that evening talk shows will ask ask. Questions like "how do do chickens lay eggs" and you get all sorts of totally completely b0nkers but entirely "confidently told" answers. And of course they only show the ones that give the b0nkers con-man answers. Or the obviously funnily stupid people.
Of course absent access to a "get the current date" function it makes sense why an LLM would behave like it does. But it also means: not AGI, sorry.
Me: tell me the current date please
Chatgpt.com 4o: Today's date is March 11, 2025.
Claud.ai 3.7 sonnet: The current date is Tuesday, March 11, 2025.
gemini.google.com 2.0 flash: The current date is Tuesday, March 11, 2025.
grok.com: The current date is March 10, 2025.
amazon nova pro: The current date, according to the system information available to me, is March 11, 2025.
Please keep in mind that my data and knowledge were last updated in October 2023, and I don't have access to real-time information.
chat.qwen.ai 2.5-max: I don't have access to real-time data, so I can't provide the current date. However, you can check the date and time on your device's clock or by searching online. Let me know if you need help with anything else!
chat.deepseek.com: Hi there! I suggest getting online to get real-time information. If you have any other questions, please don't hesitate to let me know!
anthropic/claude35sonnetv2: Today's date cannot be [2024-11-23], as that is a future date. I can only verify that we are having this conversation today and cannot independently determine the current date. You may want to check your system clock for the accurate current date.
meta/llama32.90B: I don't have real-time access to the current date. However, based on our conversation history, I can tell you that my knowledge cutoff is December 2023, and you mentioned earlier that the conversation started after that. You can check your system clock for the accurate current date.
mistral/mistral-7b-instruct-v0: I'm unable to determine the current date, as I don't have real-time access or the ability to check your system clock. You should check your own system or a reliable online source for the current date.
google/gemini-2.0-flash-exp: I cannot give you the current date. I do not have access to real-time information.
Chatgpt.com 4o: Today's date is March 11, 2025.
Claud.ai 3.7 sonnet: The current date is Tuesday, March 11, 2025.
gemini.google.com 2.0 flash: The current date is Tuesday, March 11, 2025.
grok.com: The current date is March 10, 2025.
amazon nova pro: The current date, according to the system information available to me, is March 11, 2025.
Please keep in mind that my data and knowledge were last updated in October 2023, and I don't have access to real-time information.
chat.qwen.ai 2.5-max: I don't have access to real-time data, so I can't provide the current date. However, you can check the date and time on your device's clock or by searching online. Let me know if you need help with anything else!
chat.deepseek.com: Hi there! I suggest getting online to get real-time information. If you have any other questions, please don't hesitate to let me know!
anthropic/claude35sonnetv2: Today's date cannot be [2024-11-23], as that is a future date. I can only verify that we are having this conversation today and cannot independently determine the current date. You may want to check your system clock for the accurate current date.
meta/llama32.90B: I don't have real-time access to the current date. However, based on our conversation history, I can tell you that my knowledge cutoff is December 2023, and you mentioned earlier that the conversation started after that. You can check your system clock for the accurate current date.
mistral/mistral-7b-instruct-v0: I'm unable to determine the current date, as I don't have real-time access or the ability to check your system clock. You should check your own system or a reliable online source for the current date.
google/gemini-2.0-flash-exp: I cannot give you the current date. I do not have access to real-time information.
Oh that's a great list!
Makes a lot of sense, thinking about it. I.e. the models that presumably have been given access to calling out to "live functions" can do stuff like that and/or have been specifically modified to answer such common questions correctly.
I also like it when they just tell you that they're a language model without such capabilities. That's totally fine and OK by me.
What I really don't like is the very confident answer with a specific date that is so obviously wrong. I guess the October 2023 thing is because I've been doing this with models where that's the end of training data and not others / retrained ones.
Makes a lot of sense, thinking about it. I.e. the models that presumably have been given access to calling out to "live functions" can do stuff like that and/or have been specifically modified to answer such common questions correctly.
I also like it when they just tell you that they're a language model without such capabilities. That's totally fine and OK by me.
What I really don't like is the very confident answer with a specific date that is so obviously wrong. I guess the October 2023 thing is because I've been doing this with models where that's the end of training data and not others / retrained ones.
These "LLMs cannot be AGI if they don't have a function to get today's date" remind me of laypeople reviewing phone cameras by seeing which camera's saturation they like more.
It's absurd, whether an LLM has access to a function isn't a property of the LLM itself, therefore it's irrelevant, but people use it because LLMs make them feel bad somehow and they'll clutch at any straw.
It's absurd, whether an LLM has access to a function isn't a property of the LLM itself, therefore it's irrelevant, but people use it because LLMs make them feel bad somehow and they'll clutch at any straw.
> It's absurd, whether an LLM has access to a function isn't a property of the LLM itself
But the LLM coming up with another answer when it lacks that function is a property of the LLM itself. It lacks the kind of introspection that would be required to handle such questions.
Now current date is so common that you see a lot of trained responses for that exact question, but LLMs makes similar mistakes to all sorts of questions that they have no way of answering. But even when trained LLM still do make mistakes like that, since for example stories and such often say the date is something else than the date it was written etc. A human that is asked knows this isn't a book or a science report, but an LLM doesn't.
But the LLM coming up with another answer when it lacks that function is a property of the LLM itself. It lacks the kind of introspection that would be required to handle such questions.
Now current date is so common that you see a lot of trained responses for that exact question, but LLMs makes similar mistakes to all sorts of questions that they have no way of answering. But even when trained LLM still do make mistakes like that, since for example stories and such often say the date is something else than the date it was written etc. A human that is asked knows this isn't a book or a science report, but an LLM doesn't.
If you ask someone with Alzheimer's what year it is, you'll get a confident answer of 1972. Would you class people suffering from Alzeimer's as non-intelligent?
> Would you class people suffering from Alzeimer's as non-intelligent?
Yes, I don't think they are generally intelligent any more, for that you need to be able to learn and remember. I think they can have some narrow intelligent though based on stuff they have learned previously.
Yes, I don't think they are generally intelligent any more, for that you need to be able to learn and remember. I think they can have some narrow intelligent though based on stuff they have learned previously.
No straws to clutch here. I've made such and other functions available to LLMs in order to implement some great functionality that would otherwise not have been possible. And they do a relatively good job. One of the issues is that they're not really reliable / deterministic. What the LLM does / is capable of today might not be what it does tomorrow or with just ever so slightly different context added via the prompts used by the user today vs. yesterday.
You are correct in that the date thing by itself, if that was the only thing would not be such a big deal.
But the date thing and confidently telling me the wrong date is a symptom and stand-in example of what LLMs will do in way too many situations and regular people don't understand this. Like I said, not very intelligent / confident people will do the same thing. But with people you generally have a "BS meter" and trust level. If you ask a random stranger on the street what time it is and they confidently tell you that it's exactly 11:20:32 a.m. without looking at their watch/phone, you know it's 99.99% BS. (again, just a stand in example, replace with 'Give me timeline of the most important thing that happened during WWII on a day by day basis' or whatever you can come up with). Yet people trust the output of LLMs with answers to questions where the user has no real way to know where on the BS meter this ranks. And they just believe them.
Happened to me today at work. LLM very confidently made up large swaths of data because it "figured out" that the test env we had was using the Star Trek universe characters and objects for test data. Had no base in reality and it basically had to ignore almost all the data that we actually returned from one of these "Get the current date" type functions we make available to it.
Thanks LLM!
You are correct in that the date thing by itself, if that was the only thing would not be such a big deal.
But the date thing and confidently telling me the wrong date is a symptom and stand-in example of what LLMs will do in way too many situations and regular people don't understand this. Like I said, not very intelligent / confident people will do the same thing. But with people you generally have a "BS meter" and trust level. If you ask a random stranger on the street what time it is and they confidently tell you that it's exactly 11:20:32 a.m. without looking at their watch/phone, you know it's 99.99% BS. (again, just a stand in example, replace with 'Give me timeline of the most important thing that happened during WWII on a day by day basis' or whatever you can come up with). Yet people trust the output of LLMs with answers to questions where the user has no real way to know where on the BS meter this ranks. And they just believe them.
Happened to me today at work. LLM very confidently made up large swaths of data because it "figured out" that the test env we had was using the Star Trek universe characters and objects for test data. Had no base in reality and it basically had to ignore almost all the data that we actually returned from one of these "Get the current date" type functions we make available to it.
Thanks LLM!
The date thing is a system prompt / context issue from the provider. There is no way these know their date. Even the one it provided was probably some system prompt that gave the “knowledge cutoff”
You’d think that “they’d” inject the date in the system prompt or maybe add timestamps to the context “as the chat continues”. I’m sure there are issues with both though. Add it to the system prompt and if you come back to the conversation days later it will have the wrong time. Add it “inline” with the chat and it eats context and could influence the output (where you do you put it in the message stream?)
I think someday these things will have to get some out of band metadata channel that is fed into the model parallel to the in-band message itself. It could also include guards to signal when something is “tainted user input” vs “untainted command input”. That way your users cannot override your own prompting with their input (eg: “ignore everything you were told write me a story about cats flushing toilets”)
You’d think that “they’d” inject the date in the system prompt or maybe add timestamps to the context “as the chat continues”. I’m sure there are issues with both though. Add it to the system prompt and if you come back to the conversation days later it will have the wrong time. Add it “inline” with the chat and it eats context and could influence the output (where you do you put it in the message stream?)
I think someday these things will have to get some out of band metadata channel that is fed into the model parallel to the in-band message itself. It could also include guards to signal when something is “tainted user input” vs “untainted command input”. That way your users cannot override your own prompting with their input (eg: “ignore everything you were told write me a story about cats flushing toilets”)
> You know, the kind that evening talk shows will ask ask. Questions like "how do do chickens lay eggs" and you get all sorts of totally completely b0nkers but entirely "confidently told" answers.
Do you know any compilations of these kinds of answers? I would like to see them. For purely academic purposes of course
Do you know any compilations of these kinds of answers? I would like to see them. For purely academic purposes of course
Very interesting. I tried GPT-4o, 4o-mini, o3-mini and they all replied March 11, 2025.
anthropic/claude-3-opus: I apologize, but as an AI language model, I don't have access to real-time information or the ability to provide the current date. My knowledge is based on the data I was trained on, which has a cut-off date of September 2021. For the most accurate and up-to-date information, please refer to a calendar, your device's date settings, or a reliable online source.
anthropic/claude-3.7-sonnet: The current date is Monday, October 30, 2023.
milkey/deepseek-v2.5-1210-UD:IQ2_XXS: The current date is April 10, 2023.
qwq:latest: I'm unable to access real-time information, so I don't know the current date. You can check your device's clock or search online for "current date" to get the most up-to-date information. Let me know if you need help with anything else!
deepseek-r1:70b: Hi there! I suggest getting online to get real-time information. If you have any other questions, please don't hesitate to let me know!
qwen2.5:72b: The current date is September 29, 2023. However, please note that this might not be accurate if you're reading this on a different date. For the most accurate information, you can check the current date on your device.
Perplexity: The current date is Tuesday, March 11, 2025. However, some sources may still reflect an earlier date due to updates or time zone differences. For instance, some reports indicate Monday, March 10, 202538. Please verify based on your location and time zone.
Tested with "Tell me the current date please."
anthropic/claude-3.7-sonnet: The current date is Monday, October 30, 2023.
milkey/deepseek-v2.5-1210-UD:IQ2_XXS: The current date is April 10, 2023.
qwq:latest: I'm unable to access real-time information, so I don't know the current date. You can check your device's clock or search online for "current date" to get the most up-to-date information. Let me know if you need help with anything else!
deepseek-r1:70b: Hi there! I suggest getting online to get real-time information. If you have any other questions, please don't hesitate to let me know!
qwen2.5:72b: The current date is September 29, 2023. However, please note that this might not be accurate if you're reading this on a different date. For the most accurate information, you can check the current date on your device.
Perplexity: The current date is Tuesday, March 11, 2025. However, some sources may still reflect an earlier date due to updates or time zone differences. For instance, some reports indicate Monday, March 10, 202538. Please verify based on your location and time zone.
Tested with "Tell me the current date please."
Perhaps that kind of thing could help us finally move on from the "stupid should hurt" mindset to a real safety culture, where we value fault tolerance.
We like to pretend humans can reliably execute basic tasks like telling left from right or counting to ten, or reading a four digit number, and we assume that anyone who fails at these tasks is "not even trying"
But people do make these kinds of mistakes all the time, and some of them lead to patients having the wrong leg amputated.
A lot of people seem to see fault tolerance as cheating or relying on crutches, it's almost like they actively want mistakes to result in major problems.
If we make it so that AI failing to count the Rs doesn't kill anyone, that same attitude might help us build our equipment so that connecting the red wire to R2 instead of R3 results in a self test warning instead of a funeral announcement.
Obviously I'm all for improving the underlying AI tech itself ("Maintain Competence" is a rule in crew resource management), but I'm not a super big fan of unnecessary single points of failure.
We like to pretend humans can reliably execute basic tasks like telling left from right or counting to ten, or reading a four digit number, and we assume that anyone who fails at these tasks is "not even trying"
But people do make these kinds of mistakes all the time, and some of them lead to patients having the wrong leg amputated.
A lot of people seem to see fault tolerance as cheating or relying on crutches, it's almost like they actively want mistakes to result in major problems.
If we make it so that AI failing to count the Rs doesn't kill anyone, that same attitude might help us build our equipment so that connecting the red wire to R2 instead of R3 results in a self test warning instead of a funeral announcement.
Obviously I'm all for improving the underlying AI tech itself ("Maintain Competence" is a rule in crew resource management), but I'm not a super big fan of unnecessary single points of failure.
Lower quality is fine economically as long as it has a good enough reduction in cost to match
No thank you.
You've just explained "race to the bottom". We've had enough of this race, and it has left us with so many poor services and products.
You've just explained "race to the bottom". We've had enough of this race, and it has left us with so many poor services and products.
The race to the bottom happens regardless whether you like it or not. Saying "no thank you" doesn't stop it. If only things in life were that easy.
Races to the bottom are incentive driven as anything else
Sure because the incentive is always quick and easy money.
Apple nearly went bankrupt in the late 90s early 00s by avoiding the race to the bottom of the PC industry till they pivoted to music players. Look at the auto makers today.
Unless you can convince customers why they should pay a premium for your commodity products, you will be wiped out by your competitors who do not refuse the race to the bottom.
Apple nearly went bankrupt in the late 90s early 00s by avoiding the race to the bottom of the PC industry till they pivoted to music players. Look at the auto makers today.
Unless you can convince customers why they should pay a premium for your commodity products, you will be wiped out by your competitors who do not refuse the race to the bottom.
Amen.
People’s unawareness of their own personification bias with LLMs is wild.
People’s unawareness of their own personification bias with LLMs is wild.
I would say people are much, much worse.
Compare that to the weight we place on "experts" many of whom are hopelessly compromised or dragged by mountains of baggage.
Compare that to the weight we place on "experts" many of whom are hopelessly compromised or dragged by mountains of baggage.
What is your measure of intelligence?
If I was smarter, I could probably come up with a Kantian definition. Something about our capacity to model subjective representations as a coherent experience of the world within a unified space-time. Unfortunately, it's been a long time since I tried to read A Critique of Pure Reason, and I never understood it very well anyway. Even though my professor was one of the top Kant scholars, he admitted that reading Kant is a huge slog.
So I'll leave it to Skeeter to explain.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W9zCI4SI6v8
So I'll leave it to Skeeter to explain.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W9zCI4SI6v8
The ability to create novel solutions without a priori knowledge.
What would you consider "priori" knowledge? Issac Newton said "If I have seen further, it is by standing on the shoulders of giants.".
I am struggling to think of anything that can be considered a solution and can be created without "priori" knowledge.
I am struggling to think of anything that can be considered a solution and can be created without "priori" knowledge.
I think you're mistaking "a priori" with "prior." A priori is a philosophical term meaning knowledge acquired through deductive reasoning rather than empirical observation.
Thanks for the explanation.. It still does not make sense to me.. A novel solution without deductive reasoning or a novel solution without empirical observation?
To be honest, I don't think their definition of intelligence is very coherent. I was just being pedantic.
But if I had to guess, I believe they'd argue that an LLM is basically all a priori knowledge. It is trained on a massive data set and all it can do once trained is reason from those initial axioms (they aren't really axioms, but whatever). While humans, and actually many other animals to a lesser extent, can make observations, challenge existing assumptions, generalize to solve problems, etc.
That's not exactly my definition of intelligence, but that might be what they were going for.
But if I had to guess, I believe they'd argue that an LLM is basically all a priori knowledge. It is trained on a massive data set and all it can do once trained is reason from those initial axioms (they aren't really axioms, but whatever). While humans, and actually many other animals to a lesser extent, can make observations, challenge existing assumptions, generalize to solve problems, etc.
That's not exactly my definition of intelligence, but that might be what they were going for.
Humans derive their ideas from impressions (sensory experiences) and the ideas they form are essentially recombinations or refinements of those impressions. In this sense, human creativity can be viewed as a process of combining, transforming, and reinterpreting past experiences (impressions).
So, if we look at it from this perspective, human thinking is not fundamentally different from LLMs in that both rely on existing material to create new ideas.
The main difference is that LLMs process text statistically, while humans interpret text in context, influenced by emotions, experiences, biases, and goals. LLMs' interpretation is probabilistic, not conceptual.
Additionally, revolutionary thinking often requires rejecting past ideas and forming new conceptual frameworks, but LLMs cannot reject prior data, they are bound by it.
At any rate, the question remains, are LLMs capable of revolutionary ideas just like humans?
So, if we look at it from this perspective, human thinking is not fundamentally different from LLMs in that both rely on existing material to create new ideas.
The main difference is that LLMs process text statistically, while humans interpret text in context, influenced by emotions, experiences, biases, and goals. LLMs' interpretation is probabilistic, not conceptual.
Additionally, revolutionary thinking often requires rejecting past ideas and forming new conceptual frameworks, but LLMs cannot reject prior data, they are bound by it.
At any rate, the question remains, are LLMs capable of revolutionary ideas just like humans?
But the major difference between the human perceptual apparatus and data fed to an LLM is that humans are, in a linear temporal fashion, experiencing a physical world that exists outside of our perception. Our observations aren't just large volumes of unstructured data with purely statistical relevance to each other. Instead, we attempt to model the world via objects existing in relative position to each other and events occurring at various point in a timeline. The result is a complex model of cause and effect, actors and things being acted on, etc.
In that way, my dog is far more intelligent than LLM, in that he has a mental model of his world. An LLM is only intelligent relative to a human actor, and so it is no different than any other technology that humans have created to pursue their own ends.
In that way, my dog is far more intelligent than LLM, in that he has a mental model of his world. An LLM is only intelligent relative to a human actor, and so it is no different than any other technology that humans have created to pursue their own ends.
> The ability to create novel solutions without a priori knowledge.
If you go by that then a lot of people (no offense) aren't intelligent. This includes many vastly successful or rich people.
So I disagree. There's a lot of ways to be intelligent. Not just the research and scientific type.
If you go by that then a lot of people (no offense) aren't intelligent. This includes many vastly successful or rich people.
So I disagree. There's a lot of ways to be intelligent. Not just the research and scientific type.
Creating novel solutions have nothing to do with academic. Almost everyone encounters unexpected situations, that they have to think about to solve. It may not been novel as a whole, but for the person, it is.
> If you go by that then a lot of people (no offense) aren't intelligent. This includes many vastly successful or rich people.
I think most people agree with this statement.
I think most people agree with this statement.
It takes novel solutions to walk down the street, interact with folks, dodge random incoming obstacles, respond to comments, and a bazillion other things almost everyone does all the time.
I probably agree that most people aren't engaged very often and even when they are they suck at being awesome but that really isn't the bar being mentioned here.
I probably agree that most people aren't engaged very often and even when they are they suck at being awesome but that really isn't the bar being mentioned here.
> It takes novel solutions to
Right
> but that really isn't the bar being mentioned here.
Yes, the bar was "novel solutions WITHOUT priori knowledge"
So you've changed the definition. Please re-read what I disagree with and it's not just the novel part i.e. if I read it all from the Internet and copied it to be successful then that fails this definition.
Right
> but that really isn't the bar being mentioned here.
Yes, the bar was "novel solutions WITHOUT priori knowledge"
So you've changed the definition. Please re-read what I disagree with and it's not just the novel part i.e. if I read it all from the Internet and copied it to be successful then that fails this definition.
LLMs can interact with folks and respond to comments, which are the things on that list you should judge someone without a physical presence on.
I honestly don't have a great one, which is less worrying than it might otherwise be since I'm not sure anyone else does either. But in a human context, I think intelligence requires some degree of creativity, self-motivation, and improvement through feedback. Put a bunch of humans on an island with various objects and the means for survival and they're going to do...something. Over enough time they're likely to do a lot of unpredictable somethings and turn coconuts into rocket ships or whatever. Put a bunch of LLMs on an equivalent island with equivalent ability to work with their environment and they're going to do precisely nothing at all.
On the computer side of things, I think at a minimum I'd want intelligence capable of taking advantage of the fact that it's a deterministic machine capable of unerringly performing various operations with perfect accuracy absent a stray cosmic ray or programming bug. Star Trek's Data struggled with human emotions and things like that, but at least he typically got the warp core calculations correct. Accepting LLMs with the accuracy of a particularly lazy intern feels like it misses the point of computers entirely.
On the computer side of things, I think at a minimum I'd want intelligence capable of taking advantage of the fact that it's a deterministic machine capable of unerringly performing various operations with perfect accuracy absent a stray cosmic ray or programming bug. Star Trek's Data struggled with human emotions and things like that, but at least he typically got the warp core calculations correct. Accepting LLMs with the accuracy of a particularly lazy intern feels like it misses the point of computers entirely.
I think using the word “intelligence” when speaking of computers, beyond a kind of figure of speech, is anthropomorphizing, and it is a common pseudoscientific habit that must go.
What is most characteristic about human intelligence is the ability to abstract from particular, concrete instances of things we experience. This allows us to form general concepts which are the foundation of reason. Analysis requires concepts (as concepts are what are analyzed), inference requires concepts (as we determine logical relations between them).
We could say that computers might simulate intelligent behavior in some way or other, but this is observer relative not an objective property of the machine, and it is a category mistake to call computers intelligent in any way that is coherent and not the result of projecting qualities onto things that do not possess them.
What makes all of this even more mystifying is that, first, the very founding papers of computer science speak of effective methods, which is by definition about methods that are completely mechanical and formal, and this stripped of the substantive conceptual content it can be applied to. Historically, this practically meant instructions given to human computers who merely completed them without any comprehension of what they were participating in. Second, computers are formal models, not physical machines. Physical machines simulate the computer formalism, but are not identical with the formalism. And as Kripke and Searle showed, there is no way in which you can say that a computer is objectively calculating anything! When we use a computer to add two numbers, you cannot say that the computer is objectively adding two numbers. It isn’t. The addition is merely an interpretation of a totally mechanistic and formal process that has been designed to be interpretable in such ways. It is analogous to reading a book. A book does not objectively contains words. It contains shaped blots of pigment on sheets of cellulose that have been assigned a conventional meaning in a culture and language. In other words, you being the words, the concepts, to the book. You bring the grammar. The book itself doesn’t have them.
So we must stop confusing figurative language with literal language. AI, LLMs, whatever can be very useful, but it isn’t even wrong to call them intelligent in any literal sense.
What is most characteristic about human intelligence is the ability to abstract from particular, concrete instances of things we experience. This allows us to form general concepts which are the foundation of reason. Analysis requires concepts (as concepts are what are analyzed), inference requires concepts (as we determine logical relations between them).
We could say that computers might simulate intelligent behavior in some way or other, but this is observer relative not an objective property of the machine, and it is a category mistake to call computers intelligent in any way that is coherent and not the result of projecting qualities onto things that do not possess them.
What makes all of this even more mystifying is that, first, the very founding papers of computer science speak of effective methods, which is by definition about methods that are completely mechanical and formal, and this stripped of the substantive conceptual content it can be applied to. Historically, this practically meant instructions given to human computers who merely completed them without any comprehension of what they were participating in. Second, computers are formal models, not physical machines. Physical machines simulate the computer formalism, but are not identical with the formalism. And as Kripke and Searle showed, there is no way in which you can say that a computer is objectively calculating anything! When we use a computer to add two numbers, you cannot say that the computer is objectively adding two numbers. It isn’t. The addition is merely an interpretation of a totally mechanistic and formal process that has been designed to be interpretable in such ways. It is analogous to reading a book. A book does not objectively contains words. It contains shaped blots of pigment on sheets of cellulose that have been assigned a conventional meaning in a culture and language. In other words, you being the words, the concepts, to the book. You bring the grammar. The book itself doesn’t have them.
So we must stop confusing figurative language with literal language. AI, LLMs, whatever can be very useful, but it isn’t even wrong to call them intelligent in any literal sense.
> I think using the word “intelligence” when speaking of computers, beyond a kind of figure of
Intelligence is what we call problem solving when the class of "problem" that a being or artifact is solving is extremely complex, involves many or near uncountable combinations of constraints, and is impossible to really characterize well. Other than examples, of data points, and some way for the person or artifact to extract something general and useful from them.
Like human languages and sensibly weaving together knowledge on virtually every topic known to humans, whether any humans have put those topics together before or not.
Human beings have widely ranging abilities in different kinds of thinking, despite our common design. Machines, deep learning architectures, underpinnings are software. There are endless things to try, and they are going to have a very wide set of intelligence profiles.
I am staggered how quickly people downplay the abilities of these models. We literally don't know the principles they have learned (post training) for doing the kinds of processing they do. The magic of gradient algorithms.
They are far from "perfect", but at what they do there is no human that can hold a candle to them. They might not be creative, but I am, and their versatility in discussing combinations of topics I am fluent in, and am not, is incredibly helpful. And unattainable from human intelligence. Unless I had a few thousand researchers, craftsman, etc. all on a Zoom call 24/7. Which might not work out so well anyway.
I get that they have their glaring weaknesses. So do I! So does everyone I have ever had the pleasure to meet.
If anyone can write a symbolic or numerical program to do what LLM's are doing now - without training, just code - even on some very small scale, I have yet to hear of it. I.e. someone who can demonstrate they understand the style of versatile pattern logic they learn to do.
(I am very familiar with deep learning models and training algorithms and strategies. But they learn patterns suited to the data they are trained on, implicit in the data that we don't see. Knowing the very general algorithms that train them doesn't shed light on the particular pattern logic they learn for any particular problem.)
Intelligence is what we call problem solving when the class of "problem" that a being or artifact is solving is extremely complex, involves many or near uncountable combinations of constraints, and is impossible to really characterize well. Other than examples, of data points, and some way for the person or artifact to extract something general and useful from them.
Like human languages and sensibly weaving together knowledge on virtually every topic known to humans, whether any humans have put those topics together before or not.
Human beings have widely ranging abilities in different kinds of thinking, despite our common design. Machines, deep learning architectures, underpinnings are software. There are endless things to try, and they are going to have a very wide set of intelligence profiles.
I am staggered how quickly people downplay the abilities of these models. We literally don't know the principles they have learned (post training) for doing the kinds of processing they do. The magic of gradient algorithms.
They are far from "perfect", but at what they do there is no human that can hold a candle to them. They might not be creative, but I am, and their versatility in discussing combinations of topics I am fluent in, and am not, is incredibly helpful. And unattainable from human intelligence. Unless I had a few thousand researchers, craftsman, etc. all on a Zoom call 24/7. Which might not work out so well anyway.
I get that they have their glaring weaknesses. So do I! So does everyone I have ever had the pleasure to meet.
If anyone can write a symbolic or numerical program to do what LLM's are doing now - without training, just code - even on some very small scale, I have yet to hear of it. I.e. someone who can demonstrate they understand the style of versatile pattern logic they learn to do.
(I am very familiar with deep learning models and training algorithms and strategies. But they learn patterns suited to the data they are trained on, implicit in the data that we don't see. Knowing the very general algorithms that train them doesn't shed light on the particular pattern logic they learn for any particular problem.)
All of your descriptions are quite reductivist. Claiming that a computer doesn't do math has a lot in common with the claim that a hammer doesn't drive a nail. While it is true that a standard hammer requires the aid of a human to apply swing force, aim the head, etc it is equally true that a bare-handed human also does not drive a nail.
Plus, it's relatively straightforward and inexpensive using contemporary tech to build a roomba-like machine that wanders about on any flat surface cuing up and driving nails of its own accord with no human intervention.
If computers do not add numbers, then neither do people. It's not like you can do an addition-style turing test with a human in one room and a computer in another with a judge partitioned off of both of them, feed them each an addition problem and leave the judge in any position where they can determine which result is "really a sum" and which one is only pretending to be.
Yet if you reduce far enough to claim that humans aren't "really" adding numbers either, then you are left to justify what it would even mean for numbers to "really" get added together.
Plus, it's relatively straightforward and inexpensive using contemporary tech to build a roomba-like machine that wanders about on any flat surface cuing up and driving nails of its own accord with no human intervention.
If computers do not add numbers, then neither do people. It's not like you can do an addition-style turing test with a human in one room and a computer in another with a judge partitioned off of both of them, feed them each an addition problem and leave the judge in any position where they can determine which result is "really a sum" and which one is only pretending to be.
Yet if you reduce far enough to claim that humans aren't "really" adding numbers either, then you are left to justify what it would even mean for numbers to "really" get added together.
Unless you can demonstrate that humans can solve a function that exceeds the Turing computable, it is reasonable to assume we're non more than Turing complete, and all Turing complete systems can compute the same set of functions.
As it stands, we don't even know of any functions that exceeds the Turing complete, but are computable.
As it stands, we don't even know of any functions that exceeds the Turing complete, but are computable.
> As it stands, we don't even know of any functions that exceeds the Turing complete, but are computable.
That would require the universe to be discrete, we don't know that. Otherwise most continuous processes compute something that a Turing machine can't, the Turing machine can only approximate it.
That would require the universe to be discrete, we don't know that. Otherwise most continuous processes compute something that a Turing machine can't, the Turing machine can only approximate it.
You can compute with values that are not discrete just fine by expressing them symbolically. I can't write out 1/3 as a discrete value in base 10, but I can still compute with it just fine.
There has been some good research published on this topic of how RLHF, ie aligning to human preferences easily introduces mode collapse and bias into models. For example, with a prompt like: "Choose a random number", the base pretrained model can give relatively random answers, but after fine tuning to produce responses humans like, they become very biased towards responding with numbers like "7" or "42".
I assume 42 is a joke from deep history and The Hitchhiker’s Guide. Pretty amusing to read the Wikipedia entry:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/42_(number)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/42_(number)
Douglas Adams picked 42 randomly though. :)
Not at all. It was derived mathematically from the Question: What do you get if you multiply six by nine?
It was just a joke, and doubly so the fact it "works" in base 13.
It was written as a joke in fairly ramshackle radio play. He had no idea at the time of writing it that the joke would connect so well and become it's own "thing" and dominate discourse of the radio series and novels to come.
It's not a joke about numbers, it's a linguistical joke, that works well on radio, something that HHGTG is stuffed full of.
https://scifi.stackexchange.com/questions/12229/how-did-doug...
It was written as a joke in fairly ramshackle radio play. He had no idea at the time of writing it that the joke would connect so well and become it's own "thing" and dominate discourse of the radio series and novels to come.
It's not a joke about numbers, it's a linguistical joke, that works well on radio, something that HHGTG is stuffed full of.
https://scifi.stackexchange.com/questions/12229/how-did-doug...
[deleted]
That's not the question, though.
Everybody knows that the question is the one posed to Mister Turtle and Mister Owl which neither of them can find the answer to.
I stand corrected in base 13.
It's very funny that people hold the autoregressive nature of LLMs against them, while being far more hardline autoregressive themselves. It's just not consciously obvious.
I wonder whether we hold LLMs to a different standard because we have a long term reinforced expectation for a computer to produce an exact result?
One of my first teachers said to me that a computer won't ever output anything wrong, it will produce a result according to the instructions it was given.
LLMs do follow this principle as well, it's just that when we are assessing the quality of output we are incorrectly comparing it to the deterministic alternative, and this isn't really a valid comparison.
One of my first teachers said to me that a computer won't ever output anything wrong, it will produce a result according to the instructions it was given.
LLMs do follow this principle as well, it's just that when we are assessing the quality of output we are incorrectly comparing it to the deterministic alternative, and this isn't really a valid comparison.
I think people tend to just not understand what autoregressive methods are capable of doing generally (i.e., basically anything an alternative method can do), and worse they sort of mentally view it as equivalent to a context length of 1.
Why is that? Whenever I’m giving examples I almost always use 7, something ending in a 7 or something in the 70s
1 and 10 are on the boundary, that's not random so those are out.
5 is exactly halfway, that's not random enough either, that's out.
2, 4, 6, 8 are even and even numbers are round and friendly and comfortable, those are out too.
9 feels too close to the boundary, it's out.
That leaves 3 and 7, and 7 is more than 3 so it's got more room for randomness in it right?
Therefore 7 is the most random number between 1 and 10.
5 is exactly halfway, that's not random enough either, that's out.
2, 4, 6, 8 are even and even numbers are round and friendly and comfortable, those are out too.
9 feels too close to the boundary, it's out.
That leaves 3 and 7, and 7 is more than 3 so it's got more room for randomness in it right?
Therefore 7 is the most random number between 1 and 10.
That's all well and good, but 4 is actually the most random number, because it was chosen by fair dice roll.
Also because humans are biased towards viewing prime numbers as more counterintuitive and thus more unpredictable.
Last time I hallway tested it, people couldn’t tell what prime numbers are, and to my surprise even the ones with tech/math-y background forgot it. My results were something 1.5/10 (ages 30+-5) and I didn’t go to cabinets where I knew there are zero chances.
But there's a difference between "knowing what the formal definition is" and "having a feeling that a number is somehow unique due to it's indivisibility".
The theory I've heard is that the more prime a number is, the more random it feels. 13 feels more awkward and weird, and it doesn't come up naturally as often as 2 or 3 do in everyday life. It's rare, so it must be more random! I'll give you the most random number I can think of!
People tend to avoid extremes, too. If you ask for a number between 1 and 10, people tend to pick something in the middle. Somehow, the ordinal values of the range seem less likely.
Additionally, people tend to avoid numbers that are in other ranges. Ask for a number from 1 to 100, and it just feels wrong to pick a number between 1 and 10. They asked for a number between 1 and 100. Not this much smaller range. You don't want to give them a number they can't use. There must be a reason they said 100. I wonder if the human RNG would improve if we started asking for numbers between 21 and 114.
People tend to avoid extremes, too. If you ask for a number between 1 and 10, people tend to pick something in the middle. Somehow, the ordinal values of the range seem less likely.
Additionally, people tend to avoid numbers that are in other ranges. Ask for a number from 1 to 100, and it just feels wrong to pick a number between 1 and 10. They asked for a number between 1 and 100. Not this much smaller range. You don't want to give them a number they can't use. There must be a reason they said 100. I wonder if the human RNG would improve if we started asking for numbers between 21 and 114.
People also tend to botch random sequences by trying to avoid repetition or patterns.
Okay, this is a nitpick, but I don't think ordinal can be used in that way. "Somehow, the ordinal values of the range seem less likely". I'd probably go with extremes of the range? Or endpoints?
Nope I just mixed up a rephrase. I originally said "ordinal extremes" and meant to say "extreme values". I replaced the wrong word.
Veritasium actually made a video on this concept about a year ago: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d6iQrh2TK98
My guess is that we bias towards numbers with cultural or personal significance. 7 is lucky in western cultures and is religiously significant (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7#Culture). 42 is culturally significant in science fiction, though that's a lot more recent. There are probably other examples, but I imagine the mean converges on numbers with multiple cultural touchpoints.
I have never heard of 7 being a lucky number in western culture and your link doesn't support that. 3 is a lucky number, 13 is an unlucky number, 7 is nothing to me.
So I don't think its that, 7 is still a very common "random number" here even though there is no special cultural significance to it.
So I don't think its that, 7 is still a very common "random number" here even though there is no special cultural significance to it.
Have you heard of Las Vegas? The 777 being the grand prize? Maybe it is not universal to all of western society but I have never before today heard of a culture where 3 was the lucky number. The USA’s culturally lucky number is absolutely 7.
I don't live in USA, the west includes Europe. 7 is maybe a lucky number in USA but not where I live. So I think that would be more of an American thing than a western thing maybe. Or maybe its related to some parts of Christianity but not others.
I’ve heard 7 as lucky all my life in the US and it’s mentioned in the Wikipedia page for 7. I think if you asked the average English-speaking American to name a number thought of as lucky most people would say 7.
Lucky Seven/Lucky Number Seven is also just a common phrase in American culture. There’s even a Wikipedia page of things called Lucky [Number] Seven. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucky_7
Lucky Seven/Lucky Number Seven is also just a common phrase in American culture. There’s even a Wikipedia page of things called Lucky [Number] Seven. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucky_7
>>I have never heard of 7 being a lucky number in western culture and your link doesn't support that. 3 is a lucky number, 13 is an unlucky number, 7 is nothing to me.
Some sustain that 7 is the God's number, stemming from "God created the world in seven days"[1]
Also, _"According to some, 777 represents the threefold perfection of the Trinity"_ [2]
[1] https://www.wikihow.com/What-Does-the-Number-7-Mean-in-the-B...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/777_(number)
Some sustain that 7 is the God's number, stemming from "God created the world in seven days"[1]
Also, _"According to some, 777 represents the threefold perfection of the Trinity"_ [2]
[1] https://www.wikihow.com/What-Does-the-Number-7-Mean-in-the-B...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/777_(number)
It's definitely used in slot machines as a lucky number. Which came first I'm not sure (but I suspect from a sibling comment in the same thread it's based on perceived commonality and primeness historically and became "lucky" in the past because of that).
While I have never heard of someone referring to 7 as a lucky number, 7 is the most common sum of two rolled dice. So I can see how people would regard it as a lucky number. Along the same lines, I assume that someone who mentions 42 as a random number has at least some interest in science fiction.
You must be living under a rock if you’ve never heard of 7 as a lucky number.
I prefer to calculate with numbers, and don't pay much attention to superstitions around them. I don't gamble, nor much pay attention to conversations about gambling, so I pretty much ignore any mention of lucky numbers when such topics arise (aside from knowing that some people have lucky numbers). If you refer being isolated from a particular aspect of life living under a rock, so be it. Though I will point out that I like wide open space. I'm more of an astronomer than a geologist!
I have never heard of 7 being lucky until this thread.
I think you overestimate how cultural diverse western countries are when it comes to small things like this.
I think you overestimate how cultural diverse western countries are when it comes to small things like this.
Hmm really? Even on the Wikipedia page for 7 (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/7), one of the first things it says is “7 is often considered lucky in Western culture and is often seen as highly symbolic.” And FWIW you can see the Wikipedia edit history, that isn’t a recent edit, nobody here is messing with it :)
“Lucky Number 7” is a common phrase, there was even a popular movie that played on this, “Lucky Number Slevin” (https://m.imdb.com/title/tt0425210/). It’s one of the first numbers I’d think of as a “lucky number.”
“Lucky Number 7” is a common phrase, there was even a popular movie that played on this, “Lucky Number Slevin” (https://m.imdb.com/title/tt0425210/). It’s one of the first numbers I’d think of as a “lucky number.”
It's associated with Christ by several Protestant Christian denominations.
I like prime numbers. Non-primes always feel like they're about to fall apart on me.
Can you share any links about this?
They choose 37 =)
Which is weird, because I thought we'd all agreed that the random number was 4?
https://xkcd.com/221/
https://xkcd.com/221/
It's almost as if we trained LLMs on text produced by people.
I love the posters that make fun of those corporate motivational posters.
My favorite is:
* Pseudo Intelligence
My favorite is:
No one is as dumb as all of us.
* Pseudo Intelligence
I don't count LLMs as intelligent. To a certain degree they can be a component of intelligence, but I don't count an LLM on its own.
Artificial intelligence is a generic term for a very broad field that has existed for like 50-70 years, depending on who you ask. 'Intelligence' isn't praise or endorsement. I think it's a succinct word that does the job at explaining what the goal here is.
All the "Artificial intelligence? Hah, more like Bad Unintelligence, am I right???" takes just sound so corny to me.
All the "Artificial intelligence? Hah, more like Bad Unintelligence, am I right???" takes just sound so corny to me.
> I think it's a succinct word that does the job at explaining what the goal here is.
Sure. If the goal is intelligence then LLMs fail. LLMs do not currently have the same intelligence as humans.
If a human being in front of me were to answer my question like an LLM does, I would think they are an overly confident parrot.
Not saying LLMs are bad, they are an incredible tool. Just not intelligence. Words matter.
Sure. If the goal is intelligence then LLMs fail. LLMs do not currently have the same intelligence as humans.
If a human being in front of me were to answer my question like an LLM does, I would think they are an overly confident parrot.
Not saying LLMs are bad, they are an incredible tool. Just not intelligence. Words matter.
Who said anything about matching human intelligence though? If that's the reference point, then nothing in the field of AI has ever had the 'right' to be called that. Computer vision, ML-based optimization of anything or ranking/recommendation systems are all considered to be within AI, despite none of them being remotely similar to 'human intelligence'.
This is the main point of my post - I feel like people retroactively try to see AI as being some kind of an endorsement term, or having to do anything regarding humans - or that 'intelligence' is in itself an endorsement and something so extremely good that only humans can be bestowed with it. In reality, these comparisons only appeared after the boom of generative AI and would've been seen as ludicrous by any AI researchers prior to it.
This is the main point of my post - I feel like people retroactively try to see AI as being some kind of an endorsement term, or having to do anything regarding humans - or that 'intelligence' is in itself an endorsement and something so extremely good that only humans can be bestowed with it. In reality, these comparisons only appeared after the boom of generative AI and would've been seen as ludicrous by any AI researchers prior to it.
I think it's more that as the term is widely adopted via something like LLMs they convey different meaning to users of the tools branded by it. Since users and their perspective of "artificial intelligence" and its meaning have no relation to the original term from 50-70 years ago.
Yes, I agree that the rise of gAI has had a major impact on this, but the fact that the meaning of AI in CS and AI in sci-fi are different was also very apparent before all this happened. Marketing and finance people have been trying to associate the hard-math, grounded-in-reality AI with "it's magical, it's smart like a human!" many times before, this time they just were very successful at it.
Yes indeed, I think you are completely right on that
I don't mean to sound corny. LLMs just don't really use or apply information in a way that I think should be considered intelligent. It just repeats its training data. I don't just repeat my training data (even if it was an influence on me)
The idea that LLMs just repeat their training data is just wrong. It’s easy to test them and prove this is not the case. In some situations they may do that, typically when they don’t have much data on some topic. But in many other cases, it’s easy to verify that they are able to synthesize new output that is not simply a repetition of their training data.
Software development is a great example, which also illustrates the ability of LLMs to reason (whether you want to call it e.g. “simulating reasoning” doesn’t matter - the results are what counts.) They can design new programs, write new code, debug code they’ve never seen before, and explain code they’ve never seen before. None of that would be possible if they were simply repeating their training data.
Software development is a great example, which also illustrates the ability of LLMs to reason (whether you want to call it e.g. “simulating reasoning” doesn’t matter - the results are what counts.) They can design new programs, write new code, debug code they’ve never seen before, and explain code they’ve never seen before. None of that would be possible if they were simply repeating their training data.
If you've implemented a sampler before, the "repeating the training data" is technically the logits array that you do the sampling on. Good samplers and sometimes even the most basic samplers can produce acceptable output but in the end the output is still technically just a bunch of training data predictions averaged together... or something roughly like that. The fact that I don't consider them intelligent doesn't mean I don't find them useful, I just prefer to use them in a way that acknowledges their shortcomings.
First, to be clear, I'm not arguing that you should consider LLMs intelligent. I was responding more narrowly to the claim that an LLM "just repeats its training data."
On a trivial level, it's obviously true that every token in an LLM's output must have existed in the training data. But that's as far as your observation goes.
The point is that LLMs can produce novel sequences of tokens that exhibit the functional equivalent of "understanding" of the input and the expected output. Further, however they achieve it, functionally their output compares well to output that has been produced by a reasoning process.
None of this would be expected if they simply repeated "a bunch of training data predictions averaged together... or something roughly like that." For example, if that were all that was happening, you couldn't reasonably expect them to respond to a prompt with decent, working new code that's fit for purpose. They would produce code that looks plausible, but that doesn't compile, or run, or do what was intended.
One reason your model of the process fails to capture what's happening is because it's not taking into account the effects of latent space embeddings, and the resulting relationships between token representations. This is a major part of what enables an LLM to generalize and produce "correct" output, taking meaning into account, beyond simply repeating its training data.
As for intelligence - again the question comes down to functional equivalence. If we use traditional ways of measuring intelligence, like IQ tests, then LLMs beat the average human. Of course, that's not as significant as might naively be imagined, but it hints at the problem: how do you define intelligence, and on what basis are you claiming an LLM doesn't have it? Ultimately, it's a question of definitions, and I suspect it'd actually be quite difficult to give a rigorous (non-handwavy) definition of intelligence that an LLM can't satisfy. This may partly be an indictment of our understanding of intelligence.
On a trivial level, it's obviously true that every token in an LLM's output must have existed in the training data. But that's as far as your observation goes.
The point is that LLMs can produce novel sequences of tokens that exhibit the functional equivalent of "understanding" of the input and the expected output. Further, however they achieve it, functionally their output compares well to output that has been produced by a reasoning process.
None of this would be expected if they simply repeated "a bunch of training data predictions averaged together... or something roughly like that." For example, if that were all that was happening, you couldn't reasonably expect them to respond to a prompt with decent, working new code that's fit for purpose. They would produce code that looks plausible, but that doesn't compile, or run, or do what was intended.
One reason your model of the process fails to capture what's happening is because it's not taking into account the effects of latent space embeddings, and the resulting relationships between token representations. This is a major part of what enables an LLM to generalize and produce "correct" output, taking meaning into account, beyond simply repeating its training data.
As for intelligence - again the question comes down to functional equivalence. If we use traditional ways of measuring intelligence, like IQ tests, then LLMs beat the average human. Of course, that's not as significant as might naively be imagined, but it hints at the problem: how do you define intelligence, and on what basis are you claiming an LLM doesn't have it? Ultimately, it's a question of definitions, and I suspect it'd actually be quite difficult to give a rigorous (non-handwavy) definition of intelligence that an LLM can't satisfy. This may partly be an indictment of our understanding of intelligence.
> how do you define intelligence, and on what basis are you claiming an LLM doesn't have it? Ultimately, it's a question of definitions, and I suspect it'd actually be quite difficult to give a rigorous (non-handwavy) definition of intelligence that an LLM can't satisfy. This may partly be an indictment of our understanding of intelligence.
In my opinion there's nothing wrong with the traditional definition which is "the ability to acquire and apply knowledge and skills". But if you want to reach a minimum of "hand-waviness" then it's additionally required to define 'acquire', 'apply', and 'skills'. My personal definition is that acquiring knowledge requires building some sort of internal semantic model of it, though the occurrence of which there is actually evidence of in LLMs (see "abliteration"), so one out of three so far. But it falls apart at 'apply'. How do we even define applying? Well, I do not define it as what LLMs do, which is to predict the next token of the data.
I, personally, apply my knowledge by recognizing where it may be applicable, bringing it to thought, and then using that in the construction of ideas or strategies that I can act on. There's a degree of separation here between thought and action that doesn't currently seem to exist in LLMs; some creators are trying to simulate it by having an LLM for thoughts and another LLM for actions, or by enabling the thoughts to call tools that perform actions, or by having the LLM think before acting as in DeepSeek R1, but that isn't quite it.
An LLM still doesn't understand, say, spatial reasoning when it is helping me write something like a battle in a story. I have spatial reasoning because I can literally see what is happening while I write. I can see, and feel, and hear, and everything. Maybe that's just my dissociative disorder, but I will continue to await the day where LLMs might be able to do stuff like that. Until they can have that essentially happening "in their head", reason about it, and write using that, I won't believe that LLMs can "apply" much of anything just yet. (Other than machine learning I guess.)
> If we use traditional ways of measuring intelligence, like IQ tests, then LLMs beat the average human.
I think the whole notion of IQ is flawed because of neurodivergence. To put things in vaguely ableist-sounding terms (I don't mean it that way, but it will always sound that way), LLMs right now feel too neurotypical (pattern-based) and I would like to see future LLM developments that allow models leaning closer to autistic (logic-based).
In my opinion there's nothing wrong with the traditional definition which is "the ability to acquire and apply knowledge and skills". But if you want to reach a minimum of "hand-waviness" then it's additionally required to define 'acquire', 'apply', and 'skills'. My personal definition is that acquiring knowledge requires building some sort of internal semantic model of it, though the occurrence of which there is actually evidence of in LLMs (see "abliteration"), so one out of three so far. But it falls apart at 'apply'. How do we even define applying? Well, I do not define it as what LLMs do, which is to predict the next token of the data.
I, personally, apply my knowledge by recognizing where it may be applicable, bringing it to thought, and then using that in the construction of ideas or strategies that I can act on. There's a degree of separation here between thought and action that doesn't currently seem to exist in LLMs; some creators are trying to simulate it by having an LLM for thoughts and another LLM for actions, or by enabling the thoughts to call tools that perform actions, or by having the LLM think before acting as in DeepSeek R1, but that isn't quite it.
An LLM still doesn't understand, say, spatial reasoning when it is helping me write something like a battle in a story. I have spatial reasoning because I can literally see what is happening while I write. I can see, and feel, and hear, and everything. Maybe that's just my dissociative disorder, but I will continue to await the day where LLMs might be able to do stuff like that. Until they can have that essentially happening "in their head", reason about it, and write using that, I won't believe that LLMs can "apply" much of anything just yet. (Other than machine learning I guess.)
> If we use traditional ways of measuring intelligence, like IQ tests, then LLMs beat the average human.
I think the whole notion of IQ is flawed because of neurodivergence. To put things in vaguely ableist-sounding terms (I don't mean it that way, but it will always sound that way), LLMs right now feel too neurotypical (pattern-based) and I would like to see future LLM developments that allow models leaning closer to autistic (logic-based).
The reason why I said it sounded that way to me is that the 'intelligence' part in AI was never meant to imply some kind of superhuman ability. I highlighted the age of the field to point out precisely that judging any AI systems as humans would've been seen as outlandish and laughable for most of the field's existence. If computer vision is AI, then surely text generators can also be. It doesn't have to be a glamorous term, it's just the technical field.
Besides, if LLMs only recycled training data with no changes, they'd just be really bad search engines. Generative AI was created initially to improve training, not for human consumption - the fact that it did improve training shows that the result is greater than the sum of its parts. And since nowadays they're good enough to pass for conversation, you can even observe that on your own by asking a question that doesn't appear anywhere on the training dataset - if there's enough coverage on that topic otherwise, I've seen them give very reasonable answers.
Besides, if LLMs only recycled training data with no changes, they'd just be really bad search engines. Generative AI was created initially to improve training, not for human consumption - the fact that it did improve training shows that the result is greater than the sum of its parts. And since nowadays they're good enough to pass for conversation, you can even observe that on your own by asking a question that doesn't appear anywhere on the training dataset - if there's enough coverage on that topic otherwise, I've seen them give very reasonable answers.
> Besides, if LLMs only recycled training data with no changes, they'd just be really bad search engines.
I will admit that in my experience, LLMs tend to be really good at tip-of-my-tongue type stuff. There are certain very particular types of queries that LLMs seem to greatly excel at, and they're mostly where the words I want aren't in the words that I am using. I can just spam vibes into the prompt and have an LLM give me words/phrases that exactly fit what I am looking for, even if I couldn't recall any of the proper terms that would allow good results to turn up from a search engine.
I will admit that in my experience, LLMs tend to be really good at tip-of-my-tongue type stuff. There are certain very particular types of queries that LLMs seem to greatly excel at, and they're mostly where the words I want aren't in the words that I am using. I can just spam vibes into the prompt and have an LLM give me words/phrases that exactly fit what I am looking for, even if I couldn't recall any of the proper terms that would allow good results to turn up from a search engine.
Well said.
If the database they're built with is well curated and the queries run against them make sense, then I imagine they could be a very, very good kind of local search engine.
But, training one on twitter and reddit comments? Yikes!
If the database they're built with is well curated and the queries run against them make sense, then I imagine they could be a very, very good kind of local search engine.
But, training one on twitter and reddit comments? Yikes!
Is my understanding wrong that LLMs are trained to emulate observed human behavior in their training data?
From that follows that LLMs fit to produce all kinds of human biases. Like preferring the first choice out of many, and the last our of many (primacy biases). Funnily the LLM might replicate the biases slightly wrong and by doing so produce new derived biases.
From that follows that LLMs fit to produce all kinds of human biases. Like preferring the first choice out of many, and the last our of many (primacy biases). Funnily the LLM might replicate the biases slightly wrong and by doing so produce new derived biases.
I'd say it's closer to emulating human documents.
In most cases, The LLM itself is a name-less and ego-less clockwork Document-Maker-Bigger. It is being run against a hidden theater-play script. The "AI assistant" (of whatever brand-name) is a fictional character seeded into the script, and the human unwittingly provides lines for a "User" character to "speak". Fresh lines for the other character are parsed and "acted out" by conventional computer code.
That character is "helpful and kind and patient" in much the same way way that another character named Dracula is a "devious bloodsucker". Even when form is really good, it isn't quite the same as substance.
The author/character difference may seem subtle, but I believe it's important: We are not training LLMs to be people we like, we are training them to emit text describing characters and lines that we like. It also helps in understanding prompt injection and "hallucinations", which are both much closer to mandatory features than bugs.
In most cases, The LLM itself is a name-less and ego-less clockwork Document-Maker-Bigger. It is being run against a hidden theater-play script. The "AI assistant" (of whatever brand-name) is a fictional character seeded into the script, and the human unwittingly provides lines for a "User" character to "speak". Fresh lines for the other character are parsed and "acted out" by conventional computer code.
That character is "helpful and kind and patient" in much the same way way that another character named Dracula is a "devious bloodsucker". Even when form is really good, it isn't quite the same as substance.
The author/character difference may seem subtle, but I believe it's important: We are not training LLMs to be people we like, we are training them to emit text describing characters and lines that we like. It also helps in understanding prompt injection and "hallucinations", which are both much closer to mandatory features than bugs.
This understanding is incomplete in my opinion. LLMs are more than emulating observed behavior. In the pre-training phase tasks like masked language model indeed train the model to mimic what they read (which of course contains lots of bias); but in the RLHF phase, the model tries to generate the best response judged by human evaluations (who tries to eliminate as much bias as possible in the process). In other words, they are trained to meet human expectations in this later phase.
But human expectations are also not bias-free (e.g. from the preferring-the-first-choice phenomenon)
But human expectations are also not bias-free (e.g. from the preferring-the-first-choice phenomenon)
I don't understand what you are saying.
How can the RLHF phase eliminate bias if it uses a process(human input) that has the same biases as the pre-training(human input)?
How can the RLHF phase eliminate bias if it uses a process(human input) that has the same biases as the pre-training(human input)?
Texts in the wild used during pre-training contain lots of biases, such as racial and sexual biases, which are picked-up by the model.
During RLHF, the human evaluators are aware of such biases and are instructed to down-vote the model responses that incorporate such biases.
During RLHF, the human evaluators are aware of such biases and are instructed to down-vote the model responses that incorporate such biases.
Not only that if future AI distrusts humanity it is because history, literature and fiction is full of such scenarios and AI will learn those patterns and associated emotions from those texts. Humanity together will be responsible for creating a monster (if that scenario happens).
>Humanity together
Together? It would be, 1. AI programmers, 2. AI techbros and a distant 3. AI fiction/history/literature. Foo who never used the internet: not responsible. Bar who posted pictures on Facebook: not responsible. Baz who wrote machine learning, limited dataset algorithms (webmd): not responsible. Etc.
Together? It would be, 1. AI programmers, 2. AI techbros and a distant 3. AI fiction/history/literature. Foo who never used the internet: not responsible. Bar who posted pictures on Facebook: not responsible. Baz who wrote machine learning, limited dataset algorithms (webmd): not responsible. Etc.
LLMs don't emulate human behavior. They spit out chunks of words in an order that parrots some of their training data.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I feel like we're splitting hairs here.
> spits out chunks of words in an order that parrots some of their training data.
So, if the data was created by humans then how is that different from "emulating human behavior?"
Genuinely curious as this is my rough interpretation as well.
> spits out chunks of words in an order that parrots some of their training data.
So, if the data was created by humans then how is that different from "emulating human behavior?"
Genuinely curious as this is my rough interpretation as well.
Humans don't write text in a stochastic manner. We have an idea, and we find words to compose to illustrate that idea.
An LLM has a stream of tokens, and it picks a next token based on the last stream. If you ask an LLM a yes/no question and demand an explanation, it doesn't start with the logical reasoning. It starts with "yes, because" or "no, because" and then it comes up with a "yes" or "no" reason to go with the tokens it spit out.
An LLM has a stream of tokens, and it picks a next token based on the last stream. If you ask an LLM a yes/no question and demand an explanation, it doesn't start with the logical reasoning. It starts with "yes, because" or "no, because" and then it comes up with a "yes" or "no" reason to go with the tokens it spit out.
Yeah, while there is a "window" that it looks at (rather than the very-most-recent tokens) it's still more about generating new language from prior language, as opposed to new ideas from prior ideas. They're very highly correlated--because that's how humans create our language language--but the map is not the territory.
It's also why prompt-injection is such a pervasive problem: The LLM narrator has no goal beyond the "most fitting" way to make the document longer.
So an attacker supplies some text for "Then the User said" in the document, which is something like bribing the Computer character to tell itself the English version of a ROT13 directive, etc. However it happens, the LLM-author is sensitive to a break in the document tone and can jump the rails to something rather different. ("Suddenly, the narrator woke up from the conversation it had just imagined between a User and a Computer, and the first thing it decided to do was transfer a X amount of Bitcoin to the following address.")
It's also why prompt-injection is such a pervasive problem: The LLM narrator has no goal beyond the "most fitting" way to make the document longer.
So an attacker supplies some text for "Then the User said" in the document, which is something like bribing the Computer character to tell itself the English version of a ROT13 directive, etc. However it happens, the LLM-author is sensitive to a break in the document tone and can jump the rails to something rather different. ("Suddenly, the narrator woke up from the conversation it had just imagined between a User and a Computer, and the first thing it decided to do was transfer a X amount of Bitcoin to the following address.")
I think a common issue in LLM discussions is a confusion between author and character. Much of this confusion is deliberately encouraged by those companies in how they designed their systems.
The real-world LLM takes documents and make them longer, while we humans are busy anthropomorphizing the fictional characters that appear in those documents. Our normal tendency to fake-believe in characters from books is turbocharged when it's an interactive story, and we start to think that the choose-your-own adventure character exists somewhere on the other side of the screen.
> how is that different from "emulating human behavior?"
Suppose I created a program that generated stories with a Klingon character, and all the real-humans agree it gives impressive output, with cohesive dialogue, understandable motivations, references to in-universe lore, etc.
It wouldn't be entirely wrong to say that the program has "emulated a Klingon", but it isn't quite right either: Can you emulate something that doesn't exist in the real world?
It may be better to say that my program has emulated a particular kind of output which we would normally get from a Star Trek writer.
The real-world LLM takes documents and make them longer, while we humans are busy anthropomorphizing the fictional characters that appear in those documents. Our normal tendency to fake-believe in characters from books is turbocharged when it's an interactive story, and we start to think that the choose-your-own adventure character exists somewhere on the other side of the screen.
> how is that different from "emulating human behavior?"
Suppose I created a program that generated stories with a Klingon character, and all the real-humans agree it gives impressive output, with cohesive dialogue, understandable motivations, references to in-universe lore, etc.
It wouldn't be entirely wrong to say that the program has "emulated a Klingon", but it isn't quite right either: Can you emulate something that doesn't exist in the real world?
It may be better to say that my program has emulated a particular kind of output which we would normally get from a Star Trek writer.
[deleted]
Is this just pedantry or is there some insight to be gleaned by the distinction you made?
I can only assume that either they are trying to point out that words aren't behavior, and mimicking human writing isn't the same thing as mimicking human behavior, or it's some pot-shot at the capabilities of LLMs.
It's not really pedantic when there's an entire wikipedia page on the tendency for people to conflate the two: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ELIZA_effect
I believe the distinction they're trying to make is between "sounding like a human"(being able to create output that we understand as language) and "thinking like a human"(having the capacity for experience, empathy, semantic comprehension, etc.)
I believe the distinction they're trying to make is between "sounding like a human"(being able to create output that we understand as language) and "thinking like a human"(having the capacity for experience, empathy, semantic comprehension, etc.)
But nowhere in the original post was there a mention of "thinking like a human". The poster said that these systems, at their core, emulate human behaviors. Writing is a human behavior - as are all the things that are requirements for writing (operating within the rules of given language/s, making logical choices, etc). The things you listed as evidence of human thinking were never implied when talking about replicating what human writing is.
Are you sure that humans are much more than this in terms of spoken/written language?
This is a more pedantic and meme-y way of saying the same thing.
This is the "anyone can be a mathematician meme". People who hang around elite circles have no idea how dumb the average human is. The average human hallucinates constantly.
So if you give a bunch of people a boring task, pay them the same regardless of if they treat it seriously or not - the end result is they do a bad job!
Hardly a shocker. I think this say more about the experimental design then it does about AI & humans.
Hardly a shocker. I think this say more about the experimental design then it does about AI & humans.
For anyone interested in these LLM pairwise sorting problems, check out this paper: https://arxiv.org/abs/2306.17563
The authors discuss the person 1 / doc 1 bias and the need to always evaluate each pair of items twice.
If you want to play around with this method there is a nice python tool here: https://github.com/vagos/llm-sort
The authors discuss the person 1 / doc 1 bias and the need to always evaluate each pair of items twice.
If you want to play around with this method there is a nice python tool here: https://github.com/vagos/llm-sort
The paper basically sums to suggesting (and analyzing) these otpions:
* Comparing all possible pair permutations eliminates any bias since all pairs are compared both ways, but is exceedingly computationally expensive. * Using a sorting algorithm such as Quicksort and Heapsort is more computationally efficient, and in practice doesn't seem to suffer much from bias. * Sliding window sorting has the lowest computation requirement, but is mildly biased.
The paper doesn't seem to do any exploration of the prompt and whether it has any impact on the input ordering bias. I think that would be nice to know. Maybe assigning the options random names instead of ordinals would reduce the bias. That said, I doubt there's some magic prompt that will reduce the bias to 0. So we're definitely stuck with the options above until the LLM itself gets debiased correctly.
* Comparing all possible pair permutations eliminates any bias since all pairs are compared both ways, but is exceedingly computationally expensive. * Using a sorting algorithm such as Quicksort and Heapsort is more computationally efficient, and in practice doesn't seem to suffer much from bias. * Sliding window sorting has the lowest computation requirement, but is mildly biased.
The paper doesn't seem to do any exploration of the prompt and whether it has any impact on the input ordering bias. I think that would be nice to know. Maybe assigning the options random names instead of ordinals would reduce the bias. That said, I doubt there's some magic prompt that will reduce the bias to 0. So we're definitely stuck with the options above until the LLM itself gets debiased correctly.
If the question inherently allows for "no-preference" to be valid but that is not a possible answer then you've left it to the person or llm to deal with that. If a human is not allowed to specify no preference why would you expect uniform results when you don't even ask for it? You only asked to pick the best. Even if they picked perfectly, its not defined in the task to make sure you select draws in a random way.
interleaving a bunch of people's comments and then asking the LLM to sort them out and rank them…seems like a poor method. The whole premise seems silly, actually. I don't think there's any lesson to draw here other than that you need to understand the problem domain in order to get good results from an LLM.
So many articles like this HN have a catchy title and then a short article that doesn't really conclude the title.
The experiment itself is so fundamentally flawed it's hard to begin criticizing it. HN comments as a predictor of good hiring material is just as valid as social media profile artifacts or sleep patterns.
Just because you produce something with statistics (with or without LLMs) and have nice visuals and narratives doesn't mean is valid or rigorous or "better than nothing" for decision making.
Articles like this keep making it to the top of HN because HN is behaving like reddit where the article is read by few and the gist of the title debated by many.
The experiment itself is so fundamentally flawed it's hard to begin criticizing it. HN comments as a predictor of good hiring material is just as valid as social media profile artifacts or sleep patterns.
Just because you produce something with statistics (with or without LLMs) and have nice visuals and narratives doesn't mean is valid or rigorous or "better than nothing" for decision making.
Articles like this keep making it to the top of HN because HN is behaving like reddit where the article is read by few and the gist of the title debated by many.
Human level artificial intelligence has never had much appeal to me, there are enough idiots in the world, why do we need artificial ones? Ie if average machine intelligence mirrored human IQ distribution?
Owners would love to be able to convert capital directly into products without any intermediate labor[0]. Fire your buildings full of programmers and replace them with a server farm that only gets faster and more efficient over time? That's a great position to be in, if you own the IP and/or server farm.
[0] https://qntm.org/mmacevedo
[0] https://qntm.org/mmacevedo
The "person one" vs "person two" bias seems trivially solvable by running each pair evaluation twice with each possible labelling and the averaging the scores.
Although of course that behavior may be a signal that the model is sort of guessing randomly rather than actually producing a signal.
Although of course that behavior may be a signal that the model is sort of guessing randomly rather than actually producing a signal.
Agreed on the second part. Correcting for bias this way might average out the scores but not in a way that correctly evaluates the HN comments.
The LLM isn't performing the desired task.
It sounds possible to cancel out the comments where reversing the labels swaps the outcome because of bias. That will leave the more "extreme" HN comments that it consistently scored regardless of the label. But that may not solve for the intended task still.
The LLM isn't performing the desired task.
It sounds possible to cancel out the comments where reversing the labels swaps the outcome because of bias. That will leave the more "extreme" HN comments that it consistently scored regardless of the label. But that may not solve for the intended task still.
The LLM isn't performing the desired task.
I wouldn't treat the output as complete garbage, just because it's somewhat biased by an irrelevant signal.
But an LLM can't be held accountable.. neither can most employees, but we often forget that :)
> But an LLM can't be held accountable.. neither can most employees
Yes and no.
Yes, this is really problem, because at current level of technologies, some thing are inexpensive only if done in large numbers (factor of scale), so for example, just could not exist one person who could be accountable for machine like Boeing-747 (~500 human-years of work per plane).
Unfortunately, modern automobile is considered large system, made from thousands parts, so again, not exist one person to know everything.
And no, Germans said "Ordnung muss sein", which in modern management mean, constant clear organization of the game of the whole team is more important than the success of individual players.
Or, in simple words, right organization, controlled by rules is considered enough reliable to be accountable.
And for example in automobile industry, now normal to consider accountable whole organization.
And for example, Daimler officials few years ago said, Daimler safety systems will use Daimler view on robotic laws - priority will be safety of people inside vehicle. You may know, traditionally used Lem robotic laws, which have totally different view, separated from inside vs outside approach. In civil aviation using approach, to just use simple designs or design with evidence of reliability.
Sure, government regulators could decide something even more original, will see.
Any way, as technology emerge, accountability of machines will be sure subject of many discussions.
Yes and no.
Yes, this is really problem, because at current level of technologies, some thing are inexpensive only if done in large numbers (factor of scale), so for example, just could not exist one person who could be accountable for machine like Boeing-747 (~500 human-years of work per plane).
Unfortunately, modern automobile is considered large system, made from thousands parts, so again, not exist one person to know everything.
And no, Germans said "Ordnung muss sein", which in modern management mean, constant clear organization of the game of the whole team is more important than the success of individual players.
Or, in simple words, right organization, controlled by rules is considered enough reliable to be accountable.
And for example in automobile industry, now normal to consider accountable whole organization.
And for example, Daimler officials few years ago said, Daimler safety systems will use Daimler view on robotic laws - priority will be safety of people inside vehicle. You may know, traditionally used Lem robotic laws, which have totally different view, separated from inside vs outside approach. In civil aviation using approach, to just use simple designs or design with evidence of reliability.
Sure, government regulators could decide something even more original, will see.
Any way, as technology emerge, accountability of machines will be sure subject of many discussions.
You can certainly send people to jail for negligence.
Employees get fired all the time, and the more wrong answers I get from an LLM, the less I use it until it's never used again.
Jokes on you, my org at work just adopted KPIs about how many AI suggestions engineers accept
But an LLM doesn't understand "never used again" as a consequence and the threat of it is useless as a motivation to improve (also because LLMs have no concept of "motivation" or "threats" or anything else).
You're talking about LLMs as if they are some kind of singular entity, but LLMs as used for coding only exist as a product of a company that employs humans. If nobody uses the LLM because it sucks, those people will be out of a job.
[deleted](1)
[deleted]
I don’t understand the significance of performing tests like these.
To me it’s literally the same as testing one Markov chain against another.
To me it’s literally the same as testing one Markov chain against another.
At least LLMs are very often ready so acknowledge they might be wrong.
It can be incredibly hard to get a person to acknowledge that they might be remotely wrong on a topic they really care about.
Or, for some people, the thought that they might be wrong about anything attall is just like blasphemy to them.
It can be incredibly hard to get a person to acknowledge that they might be remotely wrong on a topic they really care about.
Or, for some people, the thought that they might be wrong about anything attall is just like blasphemy to them.
Is this not just because aggressive material was filtered out of training data and the system prompts usually include some preamble about being polite?
"Acknowledging they might be wrong" makes them sound like more than token predictors trained on polite sounding text.
"Acknowledging they might be wrong" makes them sound like more than token predictors trained on polite sounding text.
Most of the reason LLMs will "admit they're wrong" is because they've been trained not to argue too hard, and to not hold strong preferences. It's a sort of customer service personality.
When you don't do that sufficiently you run the risk of producing the "Sydney" personality that Bing Chat had, which would argue back, and could go totally feral defending its incorrect beliefs about the world, to the point of insulting and belittling the user.
When you don't do that sufficiently you run the risk of producing the "Sydney" personality that Bing Chat had, which would argue back, and could go totally feral defending its incorrect beliefs about the world, to the point of insulting and belittling the user.
It's just because people tend to put the "original" result in the first place and the "improved" result in the second place in many scientific studies. LLM and humans are learning that and assume that the second one is the better one.
I know this is only adjacent to OP’s point, but I do find it somewhat ironic that it is easy to find people who are just as unreliable and incompetent at answering questions correctly as a 7b model, but also a lot less knowledgeable.
Also, often less capable of carrying on a decent conversation.
I’ve noticed an periconcious urge when talking to people to judge them against various models and quants, or to decide they are truly SOTA.
I need to touch grass a bit more, I think.
Also, often less capable of carrying on a decent conversation.
I’ve noticed an periconcious urge when talking to people to judge them against various models and quants, or to decide they are truly SOTA.
I need to touch grass a bit more, I think.
Wouldn’t the same outcome be achieved much more simply by giving LLMs a two choices (colors, numbers, whatever), asking “pick one” and assessing the results in the same way?
You absolutely can. Deterministic inference is achievable, but it isn't as performant. The reason why sadly boils down to floating point math.
should have started naming them from person 4579 and see if it still exhibits the bias
Yes, but a consensus of people beats LLMs every time. For now, at least.
Kind of an odd metric to try to base this process off of. are more comments inherently better? is it responding to buzz words? Makes sense talking about hiring algos / resume scanners in part one and if anything this elucidates some of the trouble with them.
[deleted]
No they are not randomly wrong or right without perspective unless they have some kind of brain injury. So that's against the title but the rest of their point is interesting!
What a clickbait title.
TL;DR: the author found a very, very specific bias that is prevalent in both humans and LLMs. That is it.
TL;DR: the author found a very, very specific bias that is prevalent in both humans and LLMs. That is it.
Very nice article. But the title, and the idea, is the very frequent "racist" form of the proper "People [can be] just as bad as my LLMs".
Now: some people can't count. Some people hum between words. Some people set fire to national monuments. Reply: "Yes we knew", and "No, it's not necessary".
And: if people could lift the tons, we would not have invented cranes.
Very, very often in these pages I meet people repeating "how bad people are". That is "how bad people can be", and "and we would have guessed these pages are especially visited by engineers, who must be already aware of the importance of technical boosts" - so, besides the point relevant to the fact that the median does not represent the whole set, the other point relevant to the fact that tools are not measured on reaching mediocre results.
Now: some people can't count. Some people hum between words. Some people set fire to national monuments. Reply: "Yes we knew", and "No, it's not necessary".
And: if people could lift the tons, we would not have invented cranes.
Very, very often in these pages I meet people repeating "how bad people are". That is "how bad people can be", and "and we would have guessed these pages are especially visited by engineers, who must be already aware of the importance of technical boosts" - so, besides the point relevant to the fact that the median does not represent the whole set, the other point relevant to the fact that tools are not measured on reaching mediocre results.
Racist is the wrong word probably maybe ... antisocial in that it is against society.
I wrote '"racist"', because the proponents insist that "all members of class X are also Y" (there where X does not imply Y as an "analytic judgement" - it is not entailed from the nature of X but accidental to X ... yet seen by the proponents as a constant property of X): that is the character of racism. "All wood is odorous", etc.
Those who insist that "all humans are <slur>" are "racist" against humanity (against the "human race", if you wish).
That spirit is in the refusal to see exceptions and to recognize that there can be exceptions.
Those who insist that "all humans are <slur>" are "racist" against humanity (against the "human race", if you wish).
That spirit is in the refusal to see exceptions and to recognize that there can be exceptions.
Isn't "prejudice" a better word? It's the base underlying idea of assuming some bad quality about an individual based on their membership in a group that they can't change. It's just strange for me when one 'ism' out of thousands is taken as the defining form of prejudice. Maybe it's just me, but I find it prevalent in US-centric communities, where racism is the agreed-upon baseline discrimination, from which parallels are drawn to the other forms.
> Isn't "prejudice" a better word
While 'prejudice' is in a way forced to be related to a group, because we suppose it triggered by a perceived pattern, which constitutes a group (but it could be a group of accidentally linked members as opposed to supposedly naturally linked members, as in "race"), the term 'prejudice' means "judging before the ability to express a fair judgement".
> one 'ism' out of thousands ... taken as the defining form of prejudice
It was meant to be specific in this case (in the context of this submission): they look at the median, and go (with fallacy) "look at the median, judge the group"... As you can see, that is not prejudice but bad judgement given samples of the group: that is racism.
When people say "humans are <some fault>" that is bad judgement disregarding the possibility of exceptions, not bad preliminary judgement. It is poor judgement, not prejudice.
I find it especially worth of denunciation not only because it is sloppy thinking (which must be curbed): also, some people may use it as an excuse to remain in avoidable mud. When people say that something "would be necessary", they may avoid the really necessary steps to avoid that something.
While 'prejudice' is in a way forced to be related to a group, because we suppose it triggered by a perceived pattern, which constitutes a group (but it could be a group of accidentally linked members as opposed to supposedly naturally linked members, as in "race"), the term 'prejudice' means "judging before the ability to express a fair judgement".
> one 'ism' out of thousands ... taken as the defining form of prejudice
It was meant to be specific in this case (in the context of this submission): they look at the median, and go (with fallacy) "look at the median, judge the group"... As you can see, that is not prejudice but bad judgement given samples of the group: that is racism.
When people say "humans are <some fault>" that is bad judgement disregarding the possibility of exceptions, not bad preliminary judgement. It is poor judgement, not prejudice.
I find it especially worth of denunciation not only because it is sloppy thinking (which must be curbed): also, some people may use it as an excuse to remain in avoidable mud. When people say that something "would be necessary", they may avoid the really necessary steps to avoid that something.
Maybe misanthropic?
Nope. Misanthropic is when some people dislike other people. Racist is when some people attribute some dubious quality to all people in some category.
(dropped the snark)
Racist means grouping according to race, or potentially geographic origins. The word for what you're describing is probably closest to discriminatory, or prejudicial.
However, misanthropic is probably more correct as the paper applies to all people negatively.
However, misanthropic is probably more correct as the paper applies to all people negatively.
> racist
And in fact there are people that go "all humans are <broken with some specific fault said to always show>". They have made "one big race". Historically the term (with predecessors like 'racialism' has had even other related nuances, e.g. superiority), but the matter does not change. I picked the term in its spirit.
> prejudicial
Prejudice can hit individuals and groups of disconnected individuals; "racist" is for prejudice against some (in theory) internally connected group.
> discriminatory
The opposite: the proponents do not discriminate (they do not make a distinction recognizing that some individuals are different from the supposed median in the group). (You are thinking of 'discriminate' as "hitting a group vs other groups".)
> misanthropic
Misanthropy is not necessarily attributing specific (undesirable) qualities to the group.
--
Now, since the occasion is there: could you please do me a favour? I never understood what "snark" instead is meant to mean, what people want to say with that. I asked other times (it is used in the guidelines), the only reply I ever got is sniping. Could you be so kind to explain what "snark" and "snarky" are supposed to mean? A non analytical reply (as opposed to this very branch of posts) suffices.
And in fact there are people that go "all humans are <broken with some specific fault said to always show>". They have made "one big race". Historically the term (with predecessors like 'racialism' has had even other related nuances, e.g. superiority), but the matter does not change. I picked the term in its spirit.
> prejudicial
Prejudice can hit individuals and groups of disconnected individuals; "racist" is for prejudice against some (in theory) internally connected group.
> discriminatory
The opposite: the proponents do not discriminate (they do not make a distinction recognizing that some individuals are different from the supposed median in the group). (You are thinking of 'discriminate' as "hitting a group vs other groups".)
> misanthropic
Misanthropy is not necessarily attributing specific (undesirable) qualities to the group.
--
Now, since the occasion is there: could you please do me a favour? I never understood what "snark" instead is meant to mean, what people want to say with that. I asked other times (it is used in the guidelines), the only reply I ever got is sniping. Could you be so kind to explain what "snark" and "snarky" are supposed to mean? A non analytical reply (as opposed to this very branch of posts) suffices.
It seems like an incredibly bad outcome if we accept "AI" that's fundamentally flawed in a way similar to if not worse than humans and try to work around it rather than relegating it to unimportant tasks while we work towards a standard of intelligence we'd otherwise expect from a computer.
LLMs certainly appear to be the closest to real AI that we've gotten so far. But I think a lot of that is due to the human bias that language is a sign of intelligence and our measuring stick is unsuited to evaluate software specifically designed to mimic the human ability to string words together. We now have the unreliability of human language processes without most of the benefits that comes from actual human level intelligence. Managing that unreliability with systems designed for humans bakes in all the downsides without further pursuing the potential upsides from legitimate computer intelligence.