881
AGI achieved 🤖
(lemmy.dbzer0.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 11 Jun 2025
881 points (100.0% liked)
Lemmy Shitpost
32423 readers
3468 users here now
Welcome to Lemmy Shitpost. Here you can shitpost to your hearts content.
Anything and everything goes. Memes, Jokes, Vents and Banter. Though we still have to comply with lemmy.world instance rules. So behave!
Rules:
1. Be Respectful
Refrain from using harmful language pertaining to a protected characteristic: e.g. race, gender, sexuality, disability or religion.
Refrain from being argumentative when responding or commenting to posts/replies. Personal attacks are not welcome here.
...
2. No Illegal Content
Content that violates the law. Any post/comment found to be in breach of common law will be removed and given to the authorities if required.
That means:
-No promoting violence/threats against any individuals
-No CSA content or Revenge Porn
-No sharing private/personal information (Doxxing)
...
3. No Spam
Posting the same post, no matter the intent is against the rules.
-If you have posted content, please refrain from re-posting said content within this community.
-Do not spam posts with intent to harass, annoy, bully, advertise, scam or harm this community.
-No posting Scams/Advertisements/Phishing Links/IP Grabbers
-No Bots, Bots will be banned from the community.
...
4. No Porn/Explicit
Content
-Do not post explicit content. Lemmy.World is not the instance for NSFW content.
-Do not post Gore or Shock Content.
...
5. No Enciting Harassment,
Brigading, Doxxing or Witch Hunts
-Do not Brigade other Communities
-No calls to action against other communities/users within Lemmy or outside of Lemmy.
-No Witch Hunts against users/communities.
-No content that harasses members within or outside of the community.
...
6. NSFW should be behind NSFW tags.
-Content that is NSFW should be behind NSFW tags.
-Content that might be distressing should be kept behind NSFW tags.
...
If you see content that is a breach of the rules, please flag and report the comment and a moderator will take action where they can.
Also check out:
Partnered Communities:
1.Memes
10.LinuxMemes (Linux themed memes)
Reach out to
All communities included on the sidebar are to be made in compliance with the instance rules. Striker
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
There's a thought experiment that challenges the concept of cognition, called The Chinese Room. What it essentially postulates is a conversation between two people, one of whom is speaking Chinese and getting responses in Chinese. And the first speaker wonders "Does my conversation partner really understand what I'm saying or am I just getting elaborate stock answers from a big library of pre-defined replies?"
The LLM is literally a Chinese Room. And one way we can know this is through these interactions. The machine isn't analyzing the fundamental meaning of what I'm saying, it is simply mapping the words I've input onto a big catalog of responses and giving me a standard output. In this case, the problem the machine is running into is a legacy meme about people miscounting the number of "r"s in the word Strawberry. So "2" is the stock response it knows via the meme reference, even though a much simpler and dumber machine that was designed to handle this basic input question could have come up with the answer faster and more accurately.
When you hear people complain about how the LLM "wasn't made for this", what they're really complaining about is their own shitty methodology. They build a glorified card catalog. A device that can only take inputs, feed them through a massive library of responses, and sift out the highest probability answer without actually knowing what the inputs or outputs signify cognitively.
Even if you want to argue that having a natural language search engine is useful (damn, wish we had a tool that did exactly this back in August of 1996, amirite?), the implementation of the current iteration of these tools is dogshit because the developers did a dogshit job of sanitizing and rationalizing their library of data. Also, incidentally, why Deepseek was running laps around OpenAI and Gemini as of last year.
Imagine asking a librarian "What was happening in Los Angeles in the Summer of 1989?" and that person fetching you back a stack of history textbooks, a stack of Sci-Fi screenplays, a stack of regional newspapers, and a stack of Iron-Man comic books all given equal weight? Imagine hearing the plot of the Terminator and Escape from LA intercut with local elections and the Loma Prieta earthquake.
That's modern LLMs in a nutshell.
You've missed something about the Chinese Room. The solution to the Chinese Room riddle is that it is not the person in the room but rather the room itself that is communicating with you. The fact that there's a person there is irrelevant, and they could be replaced with a speaker or computer terminal.
Put differently, it's not an indictment of LLMs that they are merely Chinese Rooms, but rather one should be impressed that the Chinese Room is so capable despite being a completely deterministic machine.
If one day we discover that the human brain works on much simpler principles than we once thought, would that make humans any less valuable? It should be deeply troubling to us that LLMs can do so much while the mathematics behind them are so simple. Arguments that because LLMs are just scaled-up autocomplete they surely can't be very good at anything are not comforting to me at all.
This. I often see people shitting on AI as "fancy autocomplete" or joking about how they get basic things incorrect like this post but completely discount how incredibly fucking capable they are in every domain that actually matters. That's what we should be worried about... what does it matter that it doesn't "work the same" if it still accomplishes the vast majority of the same things? The fact that we can get something that even approximates logic and reasoning ability from a deterministic system is terrifying on implications alone.
I'd be more impressed if the room could tell me how many "r"s are in Strawberry inside five minutes.
Human biology, famous for being simple and straightforward.
Ah! But you can skip all that messy biology abd stuff i don't understand that's probably not important, abd just think of it as a classical computer running an x86 architecture, and checkmate, liberal my argument owns you now!
Because LLMs operate at the token level, I think it would be a more fair comparison with humans to ask why humans can't produce the IPA spelling words they can say, /nɔr kæn ðeɪ ˈizəli rid θɪŋz ˈrɪtən ˈpjʊrli ɪn aɪ pi ˈeɪ/ despite the fact that it should be simple to -- they understand the sounds after all. I'd be impressed if somebody could do this too! But that most people can't shouldn't really move you to think humans must be fundamentally stupid because of this one curious artifact. Maybe they are fundamentall stupid for other reasons, but this one thing is quite unrelated.
That's just access to the right keyboard interface. Humans can and do produce those spellings with additional effort or advanced tool sets.
Humans turns oatmeal into essays via a curios lump of muscle is an impressive enough trick on its face.
LLMs have 95% of the work of human intelligence handled for them and still stumble on the last bits.
I mean, among people who are proficient with IPA, they still struggle to read whole sentences written entirely in IPA. Similarly, people who speak and read chinese struggle to read entire sentences written in pinyin. I'm not saying people can't do it, just that it's much less natural for us (even though it doesn't really seem like it ought to be.)
I agree that LLMs are not as bright as they look, but my point here is that this particular thing -- their strange inconsistency understanding what letters correspond to the tokens they produce -- specifically shouldn't be taken as evidence for or against LLMs being capable in any other context.
Because pinyin was implemented by the Russians to teach Chinese to people who use Cyrillic characters. Would make as much sense to call out people who can't use Katakana.
More like calling out people who can't read romaji, I think. It's just not a natural encoding for most Japanese people, even if they can work it out if you give them time.
Its not a fucking riddle, it's a koan/thought experiment.
It's questioning what 'communication' fundamentally is, and what knowledge fundamentally is.
It's not even the first thing to do this. Military theory was cracking away at the 'communication' thing a century before, and the nature of knowledge has discourse going back thousands of years.
You're right, I shouldn't have called it a riddle. Still, being a fucking thought experiment doesn't preclude having a solution. Theseus' ship is another famous fucking thought experiment, which has also been solved.
'A solution'
That's not even remotely the point. Yes there are nany valid solutions. The point isn't to solve it, but what how you solve it says about and clarifies your ideas.
I suppose if you're going to be postmodernist about it, but that's beyond my ability to understand. The only complete solution I know to Theseus' Ship is "the universe is agnostic as to which ship is the original. Identity of a composite thing is not part of the laws of physics." Not sure why you put scare quotes around it.
For different value sets and use cases, dear.
as I said, postmodernist lol. I'm coming from the absolutist angle.
I'll admit though that it also functions to tell you about how someone thinks about the universe. But this is true of any question which has one right answer.
Yes but have you considered that it agreed with me so now i need to defend it to the death against you horrible apes, no matter the allegation or terrain?
That's a very long answer to my snarky little comment :) I appreciate it though. Personally, I find LLMs interesting and I've spent quite a while playing with them. But after all they are like you described, an interconnected catalogue of random stuff, with some hallucinations to fill the gaps. They are NOT a reliable source of information or general knowledge or even safe to use as an "assistant". The marketing of LLMs as being fit for such purposes is the problem. Humans tend to turn off their brains and to blindly trust technology, and the tech companies are encouraging them to do so by making false promises.
Wait, what was going on in August of '96?
Google Search premiered
Can we say for certain that human brains aren’t sophisticated Chinese rooms…
Yes.
I agree, but I think you're still being too generous to LLMs. A librarian who fetched all those things would at least understand the question. An LLM is just trying to generate words that might logically follow the words you used.
IMO, one of the key ideas with the Chinese Room is that there's an assumption that the computer / book in the Chinese Room experiment has infinite capacity in some way. So, no matter what symbols are passed to it, it can come up with an appropriate response. But, obviously, while LLMs are incredibly huge, they can never be infinite. As a result, they can often be "fooled" when they're given input that semantically similar to a meme, joke or logic puzzle. The vast majority of the training data that matches the input is the meme, or joke, or logic puzzle. LLMs can't reason so they can't distinguish between "this is just a rephrasing of that meme" and "this is similar to that meme but distinct in an important way".
Can you explain the difference between understanding the question and generating the words that might logically follow? I'm aware that it's essentially a more powerful version of how auto-correct works, but why should we assume that shows some lack of understanding at a deep level somehow?
I mean, it's pretty obvious. Take someone like Rowan Atkinson whose death has been misreported multiple times. If you ask a computer system "Is Rowan Atkinson Dead?" you want it to understand the question and give you a yes/no response based on actual facts in its database. A well designed program would know to prioritize recent reports as being more authoritative than older ones. It would know which sources to trust, and which not to trust.
An LLM will just generate text that is statistically likely to follow the question. Because there have been many hoaxes about his death, it might use that as a basis and generate a response indicating he's dead. But, because those hoaxes have also been debunked many times, it might use that as a basis instead and generate a response indicating that he's alive.
So, if he really did just die and it was reported in reliable fact-checked news sources, the LLM might say "No, Rowan Atkinson is alive, his death was reported via a viral video, but that video was a hoax."
Because we know what "understanding" is, and that it isn't simply finding words that are likely to appear following the chain of words up to that point.
The Rowan Atkinson thing isn't misunderstanding, it's understanding but having been misled. I've literally done this exact thing myself, say something was a hoax (because in the past it was) but then it turned out there was newer info I didn't know about. I'm not convinced LLMs as they exist today don't prioritize sources -- if trained naively, sure, but these days they can, for instance, integrate search results, and can update on new information. If the LLM can answer correctly only after checking a web search, and I can do the same only after checking a web search, that's a score of 1-1.
Really? Who claims to know what understanding is? Do you think it's possible there can ever be an AI (even if different from an LLM) which is capable of "understanding?" How can you tell?
Well, it includes the text from the search results in the prompt, it's not actually updating any internal state (the network weights), a new "conversation" starts from scratch.
Yes that's right, LLMs are context-free. They don't have internal state. When I say "update on new information" I really mean "when new information is available in its context window, its response takes that into account."
So, what is 'understanding'?
If you need help, you can look at marx for an answer that still mostly holds up, if your server is an indication of your reading habbits.
oh does he have a treatise on the subject?
He's said some relevant stuff
nice
Im not sure it supports the argument he's actually making, but its true and valid here.