| ▲ | paxys 3 days ago |
| Yet we can ignore our biology, or act in ways that are the opposite of what our biology tells us. Can someone map all internal and external stimuli that a person encounters into a set of deterministic actions? Simply put, we have not the faintest idea how our brains actually work, and so saying saying "LLMs think the same way as humans" is laughable. |
|
| ▲ | triclops200 3 days ago | parent | next [-] |
| As a researcher in these fields: this reasoning is tired, overblown, and just wrong. We have a lot of understanding of how the brain works overall. You don't. Go read the active inference book by Friston et. al. for some of the epistemological and behavioral mechanics (Yes, this applies to llms as well, they easily satisfy the requirements to be considered the mathematical object described as a markov blanket). And, yes, if you could somehow freeze a human's current physical configuration at some time, you would absolutely, in principle, given what we know about the universe, be able to concretely map input to into actions. You cannot separate a human's representative configuration from their environment in this way, so, behavior appears much more non-deterministic. Another paper by Friston et al (Path Integrals, particular kinds, and strange things) describes systems much like modern modeling and absolutely falls under the same action minimization requirements for the math to work given the kinds of data acquisition, loss functions, and training/post-training we're doing as a research society with these models. I also recommend https://arxiv.org/abs/2112.04035, but, in short, transformer models have functions and emergent structures provably similar both empirically and mathematically to how we abstract and consider things.
Along with https://arxiv.org/pdf/1912.10077, these 4 sources, alone, together strongly rebuke any idea that they are somehow not capable of learning to act like and think like us, though there's many more. |
| |
| ▲ | stavros 3 days ago | parent | next [-] | | Thanks for injecting some actual knowledge in one of these threads. It's really tiring to hear these non-sequitur "oh they can't think because <detail>" arguments every single thread, instead of saying "we just don't know enough" (where "we" is probably not "humans", but "the people in the thread"). | | |
| ▲ | triclops200 3 days ago | parent [-] | | Of course, just doing my part in the collective free energy minimization ;) |
| |
| ▲ | goatlover 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | > And, yes, if you could somehow freeze a human's current physical configuration at some time, you would absolutely, in principle, given what we know about the universe, be able to concretely map input to into actions. You cannot separate a human's representative configuration from their environment in this way, so, behavior appears much more non-deterministic. What's the point in making an argument in principle for something that's not feasible? That's like arguing we could in principle isolate a room with a physicist looking inside a box to see whether the cat is alive or dead, putting the entire experiment is superposition to test Many Worlds or whatever interpretation. | | |
| ▲ | triclops200 3 days ago | parent [-] | | Because that's how the rules of the system we exist within operate more generally. We've done similar experiments with more controlled/simple systems and physical processes that satisfy the same symmetries needed to make that statement with rather high confidence about other similar but much more composite systems (in this case, humans). It's more like saying, in principle, if a bridge existed between Mexico and Europe, cars could drive across. I'm not making any new statements about cars. We know that's true, it would just be an immense amount of effort and resources to actually construct the bridge. In a similar vein, one could, in principle, build a device that somehow stores enough information at some precision needed to arbitrarily predict a human system deterministically and do playback or whatever. Just, some levels of precision are harder to achieve than others in terms of building measurement device complexity and energies needed to probe.
At worst, you could sample down to the uncertainty limits and, in theory, reconstruct a similar set of behaviors by sampling over the immense state space and minimizing the action potential within the simulated environment (and that could be done efficiently on a large enough quantum computer, again, in principle). However, it doesn't seem to empirically be required to actually model the high levels of human behavior. Plus, mathematically, we can just condition the theories on their axiomatic statements (I.e., for markov blankets, they are valid approximations of reality given that the system described has an external and internal state, a coherence metric, etc etc), and say "hey, even if humans and LLMs aren't identical, under these conditions they do share, they will have these XYZ sets of identical limit behaviors and etc given similar conditions and environments." |
|
|
|
| ▲ | logifail 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > Yet we can ignore our biology, or act in ways that are the opposite of what our biology tells us. I have Coeliac disease, in that specific case I'd really love to be able to ignore what "my biology" tells my body to do. I'd go eat all the things I know wouldn't be good for me to eat. Yet I fear "my biology" has the upper hand :/ |
|
| ▲ | 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| [deleted] |
|
| ▲ | iammjm 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] |
| Good luck ignoring your biology’s impulse to breathe |
| |
