This is great and provides a hard data point for some napkin math on how big a neural network model would have to be to emulate the human brain. 150 million synapses / 57,000 neurons is an average of 2,632 synapses per neuron. The adult human brain has 100 (+- 20) billion or 1e11 neurons so assuming the average rate of synapse/neuron holds, that's 2.6e14 total synapses.
Assuming 1 parameter per synapse, that'd make the minimum viable model several hundred times larger than state of the art GPT4 (according to the rumored 1.8e12 parameters). I don't think that's granular enough and we'd need to assume 10-100 ion channels per synapse and I think at least 10 parameters per ion channel, putting the number closer to 2.6e16+ parameters, or 4+ orders of magnitude bigger than GPT4.
There are other problems of course like implementing neuroplasticity, but it's a fun ball park calculation. Computing power should get there around 2048: >>38919548
Quote:
"Large language models are made from massive neural networks with vast numbers of connections. But they are tiny compared with the brain. “Our brains have 100 trillion connections,” says Hinton. “Large language models have up to half a trillion, a trillion at most. Yet GPT-4 knows hundreds of times more than any one person does. So maybe it’s actually got a much better learning algorithm than us.”
GPT-4's connections at the density of this brain sample would occupy a volume of 5 cubic centimeters; that is, 1% of a human cortex. And yet GPT-4 is able to speak more or less fluently about 80 languages, translate, write code, imitate the writing styles of hundreds, maybe thousands of authors, converse about stuff ranging from philosophy to cooking, to science, to the law.
Humans know a lot of things that are not revealed by inputs and outputs of written text (or imagery), and GPT-4 doesn't have any indication of this physical, performance-revealed knowledge, so even if we view what GPT-4 talks convincingly about as “knowledge”, trying to compare its knowledge in the domains it operates in with any human’s knowledge which is far more multimodal is... well, there's no good metric for it.
Ironically, I suppose part of the apparent "intelligence" of LLMs comes from reflecting the intelligence of human users back at us. As a human, the prompts you provide an LLM likely "make sense" on some level, so the statistically generated continuations of your prompts are likelier to "make sense" as well. But if you don't provide an ongoing anchor to reality within your own prompts, then the outputs make it more apparent that the LLM is simply regurgitating words which it does not/cannot understand.
On your point of human knowledge being far more multimodal than LLM interfaces, I'll add that humans also have special neurological structures to handle self-awareness, sensory inputs, social awareness, memory, persistent intention, motor control, neuroplasticity/learning– Any number of such traits, which are easy to take for granted, but indisputably fundamental parts of human intelligence. These abilities aren't just emergent properties of the total number of neurons; they live in special hardware like mirror neurons, special brain regions, and spindle neurons. A brain cell in your cerebellum is not generally interchangeable with a cell in your visual or frontal cortices.
So when a human "converse[s] about stuff ranging from philosophy to cooking" in an honest way, we (ideally) do that as an expression of our entire internal state. But GPT-4 structurally does not have those parts, despite being able to output words as if it might, so as you say, it "generates" convincing text only because it's optimized for producing convincing text.
I think LLMs may well be some kind of an adversarial attack on our own language faculties. We use words to express ourselves, and we take for granted that our words usually reflect an intelligent internal state, so we instinctively assume that anything else which is able to assemble words must also be "intelligent". But that's not necessarily the case. You can have extremely complex external behaviors that appear intelligent or intentioned without actually internally being so.
Without anthropomorphizing it, it does respond like an alien / 5 year old child / spec fiction writer who will cheerfully "go along with" whatever premise you've laid before it.
Maybe a better thought is: at what point does a human being "get" that "the benefits of laser eye removal surgery" is "patently ridiculous" ?
Probably as soon as they have any concept of physical reality and embodiment. Arguably before they know what lasers are. Certainly long before they have the lexicon and syntax to respond to it by explaining LASIK. LLMs have the latter, but can only use that to (also without anthropormphizing) pretend they have the former.
In humans, language is a tool for expressing complex internal states. Flipping that around means that something which only has language may appear as if it has internal intelligence. But generating words in the approximate "right" order isn't actually a substitute for experiencing and understanding the concepts those words refer to.
My point is that it's not a "point" on a continuous spectrum which distinguishes LLMs from humans. They're missing parts.