You and I can't learn to ride a bike by reading thousands of books about cycling and Newtonian physics, but a robot driven by an LLM-like process certainly can.

In practice it would make heavy use of RL, as humans do.

▲

D-Machine 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> In practice it would make heavy use of RL, as humans do.

Oh, so you mean, it would be in a harness of some sort that lets it connect to sensors that tell it things about its position, speed, balance and etc? Well, yes, but then it isn't an LLM anymore, because it has more than language to model things!

▲

wrs 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I have no idea why you used the word “certainly” there.

▲

CamperBob2 2 hours ago | parent [-]

What is in the nature of bike-riding that cannot be reduced to text?

You know transformers can do math, right?

	▲	anthuswilliams 8 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		> What is in the nature of bike-riding that cannot be reduced to text? You're asking someone to answer this question in a text forum. This is not quite the gotcha you think it is. The distinction between "knowing" and "putting into language" is a rich source of epistemological debate going back to Plato and is still widely regarded to represent a particularly difficult philosophical conundrum. I don't see how you can make this claim with so much certainty.