Is there any evidence that you yourself are more than a 'next action predictor with a multi-modal context window'?

I don't think the nature of 'predicting the next token' is the problem. One could argue that any organism works the same way. The problem is that we've had million years of evolution to stabilize the platform such that the important parts of it work without that many hallucinations -- and even then that sometimes fails and you get failure modes like e.g. schizophrenia, where the context window gets confusing and the 'next actions' don't make that much sense anymore, seen from the outside.

An LLM never experienced evolutionary pressure the same way. There's no fundamental difference between how it was incentivized to answer correctly when asked about how many Rs there are in strawberry vs whether it is safe to leave a house through the second story window, even though for any physical organism, those two would be _very_ differently weighted during training.

▲

rullelito 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

We have a world model.

▲

jrflowers 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> Is there any evidence that you yourself are more than a 'next action predictor with a multi-modal context window'?

I love the age of LLMs because people will post stuff like “the fact that I absolutely, unqualifiedly, fundamentally do not understand two separate things indicates that I understand at least one and maybe even both of them more than you do“ and then do that cool move where they pretend they were gonna high five you but don’t

it is a golden age of Posting

	▲	roncesvalles an hour ago \| parent [-]
		It's because of the proliferation of "insight-posting" - people thinking their little insightful "aha" thoughts are unique or have any kind of value at all. However, insight born of knowledge ignorance is worthless. I really don't care for your great insight about nuclear fusion if you're not a nuclear engineer or physicist working on nuclear fusion, because your insight is just a hypothesis in the void that is your ignorance. Ironically TFA falls victim to the same thing. It doesn't seem like the author is an economist or an expert of corporate finance. Their assessment of whether something is a bubble or not has absolutely no value, and carries with it the arrogant implication that the hundreds of thousands of people who are actually experts at these things never had the little 2AM epiphany that they had. It's a smaller version of the same delusion that produces crackpots.