▲ | ekianjo a day ago | |||||||
> A machine does not understand language You can't prove humans do either. You can see how many times actual people with understanding something that's written for them. In many ways, you can actually prove that LLMs are superior to humans right now when it comes to understanding text. | ||||||||
▲ | girvo a day ago | parent | next [-] | |||||||
> In many ways, you can actually prove that LLMs are superior to humans right now when it comes to understanding text Emphasis mine. No, I don't think you can, without making "understanding" a term so broad as to be useless. | ||||||||
▲ | CrulesAll 19 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | |||||||
"You can't prove humans do either." Yes you can via results and cross examination. Humans are cybernetic systems(the science not the sci-fi). But you are missing the point. LLMs are code written by engineers. Saying LLMs understand text is the same as saying a chair understands text. LLMs' 'understanding' is nothing more than the engineers synthesizing linguistics. When I ask an A'I' the Capital of Ireland, it answers Dublin. It does not 'understand' the question. It recognizes the grammar according to an algorithm, and matches it against a probabilistic model given to it by an engineer based on training data. There is no understanding in any philosophical nor scientific sense. | ||||||||
|