| ▲ | mythrwy 6 days ago | |
A good way to determine this is to challenge LLMs to a debate. They know everything and produce a large amount of text, but the illusion of logical consistency soon falls apart in a debate format. | ||
| ▲ | empath75 5 days ago | parent | next [-] | |
A good way to determine if your argument is a good one on this topic is to replace every instance of an LLM with a human and seeing if it is still a good test for whatever you think you are testing. Because a great many humans are terrible at logic and argument and yet still think. | ||
| ▲ | pessimizer 5 days ago | parent | prev [-] | |
Logical consistency is not a test for thought, it was a concept that only really has been contemplated in a modern way since the renaissance. One of my favorite philosophers is Mozi, and he was writing long before logic; he's considered as one of the earliest thinkers who was sure that there was something like logic, and and also thought that everything should be interrogated by it, even gods and kings. It was nothing like what we have now, more of a checklist to put each belief through ("Was this a practice of the heavenly kings, or would it have been?", but he got plenty far with it. LLMs are dumb, they've been undertrained on things that are reacting to them. How many nerve-epochs have you been trained? | ||