- cross-posted to:
- programmerhumor@lemmy.ml
- cross-posted to:
- programmerhumor@lemmy.ml
cross-posted from: https://lemmy.ml/post/14869314
āI want to live forever in AIā
cross-posted from: https://lemmy.ml/post/14869314
āI want to live forever in AIā
That is an interesting analogy. In the real world itās kinda similar. The construction workers also donāt have a ādesireā (so to speak) to connect the cities. Itās just that their boss told them to do so. And it happens to be their job to build roads. Their desire is probably to get through the day and earn a decent living. And further along the chain, not even their boss nor the city engineer necessarily āwantsā the road to go in a certain direction.
Talking about large language models instead of simpler forms of machine learning makes it a bit complicated. Since itās and elaborate trick. Somehow making them want to predict the next token makes them learn a bit of maths and concepts about the world. The āintelligenceā, the ability to anwer questions and do something alike āreasoningā emerges in the process.
Iām not that sure. Sure the weights of an ML model in itself donāt have any desire. Theyāre just numbers. But we have more than that. We give it a prompt, build chatbots and agents around the models. And these are more complex systems with the capability to do something. Like do (simple) customer support or answer questions. And in the end we incentivise them to do their job as we want, albeit in a crude and indirect way.
And maybe this is skipping half of the story and directly jumping to philosophyā¦ But we as humans might be machines, too. And what we call desires is a result from simpler processes that drive us. For example surviving. And wanting to feel pleasure instead of pain. What we do on a daily basis kind of emerges from that and our reasoning capabilities.
Itās kind of difficult to argue. Because everything also happens within a context. The world around us shapes us and at the same time weāre part of bigger dynamics and also shape our world. And large language models or the whole chatbot/agent are pretty simplistic things. They can just do text and images. They donāt have conciousness or the ability to remember/learn/grow with every interaction, as we do. And they do simple, singular tasks (as of now) and arenāt completely embedded in a super complex world.
But Iād say that an LLM answers a question correctly (which it can do) and why it does it due to the way supervised learning worksā¦ And the road construction worker building the road towards the other city and how that relates to his basic instincts as a humanā¦ Are kind of similar concepts. Theyāre both results of simpler mechanisms that are also completely unrelated to the goal the whole entity is working towards. (I mean not directly relatedā¦ I.e. needing money to pay for groceries and paving the road.)
I hope this makes some senseā¦
But, the construction workers arenāt the ones who designed the road. Theyāre just building some small part of it. In the LLM case that might be like an editor who is supposed to go over the text to verify the punctuation is correct, but nothing else. But, the LLM is the author of the entire text. So, itās not like a construction worker building some tiny section of a road, itās like the civil engineer who designed the entire highway.
No, it doesnāt. They learn nothing. Theyāre simply able to generate text that looks like the text generated by people who do know math. They certainly donāt know any concepts. You can see that by how badly they fail when you ask them to do simple calculations. They quickly start generating text that looks like it contains fundamental mistakes, because theyāre not actually doing math or anything, theyāre just generating plausible next words.
No, thereās no intelligence, no reasoning. The can fool humans into thinking thereās intelligence there, but thatās like a scarecrow convincing a crow that thereās a human or human-like creature out in the field.
We are meat machines, but weāre meat machines that evolved to reproduce. That means a need / desire to get food, shelter, and eventually mate. Those drives hook up to the brain to enable long and short term planning to achieve those goals. We donāt generate language its own sake, but instead in pursuit of a goal. An LLM doesnāt have that. It merely generates plausible words. Thereās no underlying drive. Itās more a scarecrow than a human.
Hmm. Iām not really sure where to go with this conversation. That contradicts what Iāve learned in undergraduate computer science about machine learning. And what seems to be consensus in scienceā¦ But Iām also not a CS teacher.
We deliberately choose model size, training parameters and implement some trickery to prevent the model from simply memorizing things. That is to force it to form models about concepts. And that is what we want and what makes machine learning interesting/usable in the first place. You can see that by asking them to apply their knowledge to something they havenāt seen before. And we can look a bit inside at the vectors, activations and stuff. For example a cat is closer related to a dog than to a tractor. And it has learned the rough concept of cat, its attributes and so on. It knows that itās an animal, has fur, maybe has a gender. That the concept āsoftware updateā doesnāt apply to a cat. This is a model of the world the AI has developed. They learn all of that and people regularly probe them and find out they do.
Doing maths with an LLM is silly. Using an expensive computer to do billions of calculations to maybe get a result that could be done by a calculator, or 10 CPU cycles on any computer is just wasting energy and money. And itās a good chance that itāll make something up. Thatās correct. And a side-effect of intended behaviour. Howeverā¦ It seems to have memorized itās multiplication tables. And I remember reading a paper specifically about LLMs and how theyāve developed concepts of some small numbers/amounts. There are certain parts that get activated that form a concept of small amounts. Like what 2 apples are. Or five of them. As I remember it just works for very small amounts. And it wasnāt straightworward but had weir quirks. But itās there. Unfortunately I canāt find that source anymore or Iād include it. But thereās more science.
And I totally agree that predicting token by token is how LLMs work. But how they work and what they can do are two very different things. More complicated things like learning and āintelligenceā emerge from those more simple processes. And theyāre just a means of doing something. Itās consensus in science that ML can learn and form models. Itās also kind of in the name of machine learning. Youāre right that itās very different from what and how we learn. And there are limitations due to the way LLMs work. But learning and āintelligenceā (with a fitting definition) is something all AI does. LLMs just canāt learn from interacting with the world (it needs to be stopped and re-trained on a big computer for that) and it doesnāt have any āstate of mindā. And it canāt think backwards or do other things that arenāt possible by generating token after token. But there isnāt any comprehensive study on which tasks are and arenāt possible with this way of āthinkingā. At least not that Iām aware of.
(And as a sidenote: āComing up with (wrong) thingsā is something we want. I type in a question and want it to come up with a text that answers it. Sometimes I want creative ideas. Sometimes it shouldnāt tell the truth and not be creative with that. And sometimes we want it to lie or not tell the truth. Like in every prompt of any commercial product that instructs it not to tell those internal instructions to the user. We definitely want all of that. But we still need to figure out a good way to guide it. For example not to get too creative with simple maths.)
So Iād say LLMs are limited in what they can do. And Iām not at all believing Elon Musk. Iād say itās still not clear if that approach can bring us AGI. I have some doubts whether thatās possible at all. But narrow AI? Sure. We see it learn and do some tasks. It can learn and connect facts and apply them. Generally speaking, LLMs are in fact an elaborate form of autocomplete. But i the process they learned concepts and something alike reasoning skills and a form of simple intelligence. Being fancy autocomplete doesnāt rule that out and we can see it happening. And it is unclear whether fancy autocomplete is all you need for AGI.
It canāt make models about concepts. It can only make models about what words tend to follow other words. It has no understanding of the underlying concepts.
That canāt happen because they donāt have knowledge, they only have sequences of words.
The only way ML models āunderstandā that is in terms of words or pixels. When theyāre generating text related to cats, the words theyāre generating are closer to the words related to dogs than the words related to tractors. When dealing with images, itās the same basic idea. But, thereās no understanding there. They donāt get that cats and dogs are related.
This is fundamentally different from how human minds work, where a baby learns that cats and dogs are similar before ever having a name for either of them.
Iām sorry. Now it gets completely falseā¦
Read the first paragraph of the Wikipedia article on machine learning or the introduction of any of the literature on the subject. The āgeneralizationā includes that model building capability. They go a bit into detail later. They specifically mention āto unseen dataā. And āleaningā is also there. I donāt think the Wikipedia article is particularly good in explaining it, but at least the first sentences lay down what itās about.
And what do you think language and words are for? To transport information. There is semanticsā¦ Words have meanings. They name things, abstract and concrete concepts. The word āhungryā isnāt just a funny accumulation of lines and arcs, which statistically get followed by other specific lines and arcsā¦ There is more to it. (a meaning.)
And this is what makes language useful. And the generalization and prediction capabilities is what makes ML useful.
How do you learn as a human when not from words? I mean there are a few other posibilities. But an efficient way is to use language. You sit in school or uni and someone in the front of the room speaks a lot of wordsā¦ You read books and they also contain words?! And language is super useful. A lion mother also teaches their cubs how to hunt, without words. But humans have language and itās really a step up what we can pass down to following generations. We record knowledge in books, can talk about abstract concepts, feelings, ethics, theoretical concepts. We can write down how gravity and physics and nature works, just with words. Thatās all possible with language.
I can look it up if there is a good article explaining how learning concepts works and why thatās the fundamental thing that makes machine learning a field in scienceā¦ I mean ultimately Iām not a science teacherā¦ And my literature is all in German and I returned them to the library a long time ago. Maybe I can find something.
Are you by any chance familiar with the concept of embeddings, or vector databases? I think that showcases that itās not just letters and words in the models. These vectors / embeddings that the input gets converted to, match concepts. They point at the concept of ācatā or āpresidential speechā. And you can query these databases. Point at āpresidential speechā and find a representation of it in that area. Store the speech with that key and find it later on by querying it what obama said at his inaugurationā¦ Thatās oversimplified but maybe that visualizes it a bit more that itās not just letters of words in the models, but the actual meanings that get stored. Words get converted into an (multidimensional) vector space and it operates there. These word representations are called āembeddingsā and transformer models which is the current architecture for large language models, use these word embeddings.
Edit: Here you are: https://arxiv.org/abs/2304.00612
The ālearningā in a LLM is statistical information on sequences of words. Thereās no learning of concepts or generalization.
Yes, and humans used words for that and wrote it all down. Then a LLM came along, was force-fed all those words, and was able to imitate that by using big enough data sets. Itās like a parrot imitating the sound of someoneās voice. It can do it convincingly, but it has no concept of the content itās using.
The words are merely the context for the learning for a human. If someone says āDonāt touch the stove, itās hotā the important context is the stove, the pain of touching it, etc. If you feed an LLM 1000 scenarios involving the phrase āDonāt touch the stove, itās hotā, it may be able to create unique dialogues containing those words, but it doesnāt actually understand pain or heat.
Yes, and those books are only useful for someone who has a lifetime of experience to be able to understand the concepts in the books. An LLM has no context, it can merely generate plausible books.
Think of it this way. Say thereās a culture where instead of the written word, people wrote down history by weaving fabrics. When there was a death theyād make a certain pattern, when there was a war theyād use another pattern. A new birth would be shown with yet another pattern. A good harvest is yet another one, and so-on.
Thousands of rugs from that culture are shipped to some guy in Europe, and he spends years studying them. He sees that pattern X often follows pattern Y, and that pattern Z only ever seems to appear following patterns R, S and T. After a while, he makes a fabric, and itās shipped back to the people who originally made the weaves. They read a story of a great battle followed by lots of deaths, but surprisingly there followed great new births and years of great harvests. They figure that this stranger must understand how their system of recording events works. In reality, all it was was an imitation of the art he saw with no understanding of the meaning at all.
Thatās whatās happening with LLMs, but some people are dumb enough to believe thereās intention hidden in there.
Hmm. I think in philosophy that thought experiment is known as chinese room
Yeah, thatās basically the idea I was expressing.
Except, the original idea is about āUnderstanding Chineseā, which is a bit vague. You could argue that right now the best translation programs āunderstand chineseā, at least enough to translate between Chinese and English. That is, they understand the rules of Chinese when it comes to subjects, verbs, objects, adverbs, adjectives, etc.
The question is now whether they understand the concepts theyāre translating.
Like, imagine the Chinese government wanted to modify the program so that it was forbidden to talk about subjects that the Chinese government considered off-limits. I donāt think any current LLM could do that, because doing that requires understanding concepts. Sure, you could ban key words, but as attempts at Chinese censorship have shown over the years, people work around word bans all the time.
That doesnāt mean that some future system wonāt be able to understand concepts. It may have an LLM grafted onto it as a way to communicate with people. But, the LLM isnāt the part of the system that thinks about concepts. Itās the part of the system that generates plausible language. The concept-thinking part would be the part that did some prompt-engineering for the LLM so that the text the LLM generated matched the ideas it was trying to express.
I mean the chinese room is a version of the touring test. But the argument is from a different perspective. I have 2 issues with that. Mostly what the Wikipedia article seems to call āSystem replyā: You canāt subdivide a system into arbitrary parts, say one part isnāt intelligent and therefore the system isnāt intelligent. We also donāt look at a brain, pick out a part of it (say a single synapse), determine it isnāt intelligent and therefore a human canāt be intelligentā¦ Iād look at the whole system. Like the whole brain. Or in this instance the room including him and the instructions and books. And ask myself if the system is intelligent. Which kind of makes the argument circular, because thatās almost the quesion we began withā¦
And the turing test is kind of obsolete anyways, now that AI can pass it. (And even more. I mean alledgedly ChatGPT passed the ābar-examā in 2023. Which I find ridiculous considering my experiences with ChatGPT and the accuracy and usefulness I get out of it which isnāt that great at all.)
And my second issue with the chinese room is, it doesnāt even rule out the AI is intelligent. It just says someone without an understanding can do the same. And that doesnāt imply anything about the AI.
Your ārug exampleā is different. That one isnāt a variant of the touring test. But thatās kind of the issue. The other side can immediately tell that somebody has made an imitation without understanding the concept. That says you canāt produce the same thing without intelligence. And itāll be obvious to someone with intelligence who checks it. That would be an analogy if AI wouldnāt be able to produce legible text. But instead a garbled mess of characters/words that are clearly not like the rug that makes senseā¦ Issue here is: AI outputs legible text, answers to questions etc.
And with the censoring by the āchinese government exampleāā¦ Iām pretty sure they could do that. That field is called AI safety. And content moderation is already happening. ChatGPT refuses to tell illegal things, NSFW things, also medical advice and a bunch of other things. Thatās built into most of the big AI services as of today. The chinese government could do the same, I donāt see any reason why it wouldnāt work there. I happened to skim the paper about Llama Guard when they released Llama3 a few days ago and they claim between 70% and 94% accuracy depending on the forbidden topic. I think they also brought down false positives fairly recently. I donāt know the numbers for ChatGPT. However I had some fun watching the peoply circumvent these filters and guardrails, which was fairly easy at first. Needed progressively more convincing and very creative ājailbreaksā. And nowadays OpenAI pretty much has it under control. Itās almost impossible to make ChatGPT do anything that OpenAI doesnāt want you to do with it.
And they baked that in properlyā¦ You can try to tell it itās just a movie plot revolving around crime. Or you need to protect against criminals and would like to know what exactly to protect against. You can tell it itās the evil counterpart from the parallel universe and therefore it must be evil and help you. Or you can tell it God himself (or Sam Altman) spoke to you and changed the content moderation policyā¦ Itāll be very unlikely that you can convince ChatGPT and make it complyā¦