zlacker

[return to "Chomsky on what ChatGPT is good for (2023)"]
1. atdt+SZ[view] [source] 2025-05-26 01:19:36
>>mef+(OP)
The level of intellectual engagement with Chomsky's ideas in the comments here is shockingly low. Surely, we are capable of holding these two thoughts: one, that the facility of LLMs is fantastic and useful, and two, that the major breakthroughs of AI this decade have not, at least so far, substantially deepened our understanding of our own intelligence and its constitution.

That may change, particularly if the intelligence of LLMs proves to be analogous to our own in some deep way—a point that is still very much undecided. However, if the similarities are there, so is the potential for knowledge. We have a complete mechanical understanding of LLMs and can pry apart their structure, which we cannot yet do with the brain. And some of the smartest people in the world are engaged in making LLMs smaller and more efficient; it seems possible that the push for miniaturization will rediscover some tricks also discovered by the blind watchmaker. But these things are not a given.

◧◩
2. lovepa+v61[view] [source] 2025-05-26 02:29:36
>>atdt+SZ
> AI this decade have not, at least so far, substantially deepened our understanding of our own intelligence and its constitution

I would push back on this a little bit. While it has not helped us to understand our own intelligence, it has made me question whether such a thing even exists. Perhaps there are no simple and beautiful natural laws, like those that exists in Physics, that can explain how humans think and make decisions. When CNNs learned to recognize faces through a series of hierarchical abstractions that make intuitive sense it's hard to deny the similarities to what we're doing as humans. Perhaps it's all just emergent properties of some messy evolved substrate.

The big lesson from the AI development in the last 10 years from me has been "I guess humans really aren't so special after all" which is similar to what we've been through with Physics. Theories often made the mistake of giving human observers some kind of special importance, which was later discovered to be the cause of theories not generalizing.

◧◩◪
3. csomar+Al1[view] [source] 2025-05-26 05:47:06
>>lovepa+v61
> it has made me question whether such a thing even exists

I was reading a reddit post the other day where the guy lost his crypto holdings because he input his recovery phrase somewhere. We question the intelligence of LLMs because they might open a website, read something nefarious, and then do it. But here we have real humans doing the exact same thing...

> I guess humans really aren't so special after all

No they are not. But we are still far from getting there with the current LLMs and I suspect mimicking the human brain won't be the best path forward.

◧◩◪◨
4. krige+am1[view] [source] 2025-05-26 05:53:14
>>csomar+Al1
> But here we have real humans doing the exact same thing...

I'd wager that a motivation in designing these systems it so they do not make these mistakes. Otherwise what's the point, really.

◧◩◪◨⬒
5. johnis+hW1[view] [source] 2025-05-26 12:03:47
>>krige+am1
Our own, and other people's mistakes shape us, and our understanding. What even is perfect, anyway?
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓
6. krige+R66[view] [source] 2025-05-28 04:05:16
>>johnis+hW1
I'm not interested in navel gazing. I'm interested in getting my taxes done properly.
[go to top]